PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

Wednesday Volume 563
15 May 2013 No. 6
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OFFICIAL REPORT
PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Wednesday 15 May 2013
£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013
This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence,
which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

617 15 MAY 2013
618
House of Commons
Wednesday 15 May 2013
The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock
PRAYERS
[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
WALES
The Secretary of State was asked—
Aerospace Industry
1. Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): What recent
discussions he has had with the First Minister
on future investment in the aerospace industry in
Wales. [153883]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones):
The aerospace industrial strategy published in March
sets out a vision for the sector, including a joint industry
and Government investment of £2 billion across the
next seven years. I am pleased that the Welsh Government
have endorsed that strategy.
Mark Tami: Aerospace and Airbus are great success
stories in Wales, so why do the Secretary of State and
his Government believe that now is the time to create
uncertainty on the question of Europe, which could
threaten future investment in the sector? Does he not
want quality jobs in Wales?
Mr Jones: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman
that Airbus is an important and innovative employer. I
have visited it twice recently, including when the contract
for the AirAsia order was signed. However, Europe is
an important issue. The Prime Minister considers it
right that we should debate it properly, and that, at the
end of that debate, we should have a vote. After the dust
has settled, the fact will remain that, of all the mainstream
parties, only the Conservative party wants to give the
people of this country a vote on Europe.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): St Athan
enterprise zone in my constituency is focused on aerospace,
and offers fantastic facilities, including hangars, runways
and skills. What action is the Secretary of State taking
to ensure that UK Trade & Investment is playing its full
part to work with the community, those employed in
St Athan and the Welsh Government to develop its
status?
Mr Jones: My hon. Friend is entirely right that St Athan
offers an enormously important resource in south Wales.
The Aerospace Technology Institute will lead collaborative
research and development projects across the UK, which
will involve universities and industry. I suggest that that
is a tremendous opportunity for St Athan.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): Airbus is a
quintessentially European company. It employs 6,000
people in Wales and 10,000 in the UK, and 100,000 further
jobs support it. Does the Secretary of State believe that
those jobs will be more or less secure if Wales is not part
of Europe?
Mr Jones: The hon. Gentleman is wrong because
Airbus employs 6,600 people in Wales, but he is right
that it is an extremely important employer. Nevertheless,
the people of this country deserve to have their voice on
Europe. The Prime Minister will carry out important
negotiations in the next few years. At the end of that
period, the issue of Europe will be put to the British
people. It is right that it should be. I am astonished that
the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party want to deny
the people of Wales and the UK their voice on that
important issue.
Owen Smith: Leaving the pedantry aside, we had no
answer from the Secretary of State on whether he
believes that those 6,600 jobs in Wales will be more or
less secure if Wales is not part of the EU. For the
record, could he clarify his position on whether the jobs
will be more secure if Wales is in or out of the EU?
What is our Secretary of State’s opinion?
Mr Jones: I am entirely happy to clarify the point.
Membership of the EU will be subject to negotiation.
To repeat, at the end of that negotiation, we will see
whether the conditions are right for this country to
remain in the EU. The interests of companies such as
Airbus will, of course, be taken fully into account.
Housing Benefit
2. Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): What assessment
he has made of the effects of changes to
housing benefit rules in Wales. [153884]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales
(Stephen Crabb): Information on the expected impact in
Wales and Great Britain of the changes to housing
benefit is provided in the impact assessments prepared
by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Mr Hanson: When the Minister gave support to that
policy, what assessment did he make of the number of
one-bedroom properties available in Wales for the
40,000 people hit by it? Does he agree with the Under-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, his noble
Friend Lord Freud, who suggested that those who are
concerned should sleep on sofas?
Stephen Crabb: I followed closely yesterday the
questioning of the Under-Secretary of State who
has responsibility for welfare reform. His comments
about sleeping on sofa beds were made in the context of
families where the parents have split—he discussed whether
there is a duty on the state to provide benefits sufficient
for each separated parent to have family-sized
accommodation for children during the same week. If
the position of the Labour party is that they should

619 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
620
have such provision, it should be stated clearly from the
Opposition Front Bench, but picking up all the costs of
relationship breakdown in that way would be an enormous
burden on the taxpayer.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Is it not the
case that, despite the jeering and catcalls from Opposition
Members, they will make no commitment to reverse
those reforms, which have been introduced because of
the financial mess the country is in? They know that
better than most since they were the ones who caused it.
Stephen Crabb: As ever, my hon. Friend is correct.
The Opposition’s position is characterised by two things:
opportunism and hypocrisy. They know they will not
reverse the changes if they ever form a Government
again.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): Today,
10 brave families will be applying to the High Court to
declare the immoral bedroom tax unlawful. They are
parents of disabled children and, in many instances, are
disabled themselves. Will the Minister update the House
on what steps his Government are taking to exempt
those families from this immoral, unjust and unworkable
tax that, according to an all-party report in March, will
not save a penny?
Stephen Crabb: I am not going to comment on the
specifics of the legal case, but the right hon. Gentleman
rightly asks what we are doing to protect the most
vulnerable people—those with severe disabilities in housing
with adaptations. [HON.MEMBERS: “Nothing.”] Opposition
Members are heckling from a sedentary position, but
contrary to what they are saying, we have set aside an
extra £25 million for people with severe disabilities
living in adapted accommodation and who need additional
support at this time.
Mr Llwyd: I hear what the Minister says, but I would
like him to respond to recent research conducted by
BBC Wales, which revealed that there are approximately
28,000 individuals in Wales living in social housing that
is considered to be under-occupied, with 400 one-bedroom
homes available for them to move to. What will happen
about that disconnect, or does he not care?
Stephen Crabb: There is a mixture of housing stock
throughout Wales. Decisions will be taken on a localised
basis, which is why we have more than doubled the
amount of discretionary housing payment to more than
£6 million to help meet the issue that the right hon.
Gentleman raises.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con): My hon. Friend has
just mentioned the £6 million increase in discretionary
housing payments in Wales. In Conwy in my constituency,
the increase to £300,000 doubles the amount available
to the local authority. Is it not the case that many of the
individual cases mentioned by Opposition parties will
be dealt with at a local level as a result of this fantastic
increase?
Stephen Crabb: We have more than doubled the amount
available to local authorities for discretionary housing
payment. In the local authorities of Wrexham and
Caerphilly, it has been increased by more than 300%.
We are determined to protect the most vulnerable people
at a time when we have to restore budget discipline to
housing benefit expenditure.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Official housing allowance
figures indicate that even if only a third of bedroom tax
victims in Wales manage to move to smaller private
accommodation, that will mean at least a £17 million
increase in the annual housing benefit bill going straight
into the pockets of landlords. How many jobs does the
Minister reckon could be created with that £17 million?
Stephen Crabb: I am not sure that the hon. Lady will
want to talk about jobs, because today’s figures show
yet again that unemployment in Wales is falling, economic
inactivity is falling, and employment is up. I do not
really follow the logic of her question, but she should
welcome today’s good news
Measles Outbreak
3. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): What
discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh
Government on the measles outbreak in south Wales.
[153885]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales
(Stephen Crabb): My noble Friend Baroness Randerson,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales,
will be meeting the Welsh Government Minister for
Health to discuss the matter further, and we remain in
very close contact with Welsh Government officials.
While this is a devolved matter, I share the concerns of
the local community and I encourage those not yet
vaccinated to do so.
Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister join me in praising
the response of NHS Wales to the measles outbreak? In
addition, will he urge those who have not taken up the
MMR vaccine to do so immediately, particularly given
the reports from Public Health Wales this week about
outbreaks further east in Wales? Will he urge them to
do that, so we can stop the spread of this dangerous
disease?
Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right.
It was very worrying to see the figures announced
yesterday that more than 4,000 children in the Swansea
area still have not been vaccinated. In Gwent, more
than 10,000 children have not yet been vaccinated, and
we have particular concerns about a measles outbreak
in Gwent. It is absolutely right that Welsh Government
public health officials are doing everything they can by
making clinics available at the weekend and so on. The
onus is now on parents to go out and get their children
vaccinated.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Does the
Minister agree that it is essential roundly to condemn
the totally incorrect research done by Andrew Wakefield
many years ago linking MMR with autism? It simply
was not true, and now is the time to say he got it wrong
and that everyone must have the MMR injection.
Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is also right. Dr Andrew
Wakefield’s research has been discredited not just in this
country, but by medical and scientific opinion throughout

621 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
622
the world. There is no reason for parents to feel
alarmed about the MMR vaccine, and there is plenty of
dispassionate advice for them if they have concerns or
questions. They should crack on now and get their
children vaccinated.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): Will the Minister
commend the work of local authorities such as Bridgend
working hand in hand with the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg
university health board and running drop-in clinics in
every school in the constituency? Does he agree with
me, a father of three teenage boys, that the very best
protection against this disease is for everyone not to be
afraid and to turn up to these clinics and get all their
children vaccinated against this terrible disease?
Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right
as well. The response from public officials in Wales at
all levels—Welsh Government, local authorities and
within Public Health Wales—has been exemplary. They
have done everything right so far, but we need to get the
message out to the communities affected that parents
with children not yet vaccinated urgently need to get
them vaccinated.
Government’s Fiscal Policies
4. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What
discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on
the effects on the economy in Wales of the
Government’s fiscal policies. [153887]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones): I
have regular discussions with the Welsh Government on
economic issues. Action taken by the Government to
deal with the deficit has helped keep interest rates at
near record lows, helping families and businesses across
Wales.
Mr Hollobone: How many people in Wales have seen
their personal tax-free income tax allowances increase
since May 2010, and how many small businesses in
Wales are set to benefit from the new £2,000 national
insurance employment allowance being introduced next
April?
Mr Jones: The increase in the personal allowance
announced by the Government will benefit 1.1 million
taxpayers and remove 130 individuals from paying income
tax altogether. More than 35,000 businesses in Wales
will benefit from the national insurance employment
allowance, with 20,000 of them being taken out of
national insurance altogether.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): I welcome the drop
in unemployment in Wales—that is in sharp contrast to
unemployment in England—and credit must go to the
jobs growth fund introduced by the Welsh Government.
What practical steps are the Secretary of State and the
Government taking to work with the Welsh Government
to eradicate long-term unemployment, which is rising in
north Wales and in his and my constituencies?
Mr Jones: The hon. Gentleman should also commend
Welsh businesses, which are increasing the number of
their employees, but certainly I am happy to commend
initiatives by the Welsh Government. His point highlights
the importance of the UK and Welsh Governments
working closely together. That is something that we are
prepared to do, and I expect to see reciprocation from
the Welsh Government.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)
(PC): The UK Government-sponsored Silk commission
recommended empowering the Welsh Government
and Welsh local authorities with fiscal responsibility to
incentivise economic development. Why were these
recommendations not included in the Finance Bill or
the Queen’s Speech in a Government of Wales Bill?
Mr Jones: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Silk
proposals are still under consideration by the UK
Government. We have always made it absolutely clear
that we will announce our response to Silk this spring,
so we will issue that response in the next few weeks.
Enterprise Zones
6. Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): What
assessment he has made of the potential for cooperation
between enterprise zones in England and
Wales. [153889]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones): I
see great potential in a joined-up approach to enterprise
zones in England and Wales. Co-operation will enhance
the offer that each of the zones presents, and I will
continue to engage with the Welsh Government to
explore these opportunities.
Stephen Mosley: Today’s unemployment figures show
that the Chester and north-east Wales economic sub-region
is becoming a jobs powerhouse in the local area. By
working together, the three enterprise zones in the area—
Deeside, Wirral and Daresbury—can pack a stronger
punch than if they act individually. Will the Secretary
of State ensure that local authorities work together to
pack that bigger punch?
Mr Jones: I visited the Deeside industrial park forum
last Friday, and that was very much the message I got
from employers in that enterprise zone. There is far
more to be gained from the three enterprise zones
working closely together. One of the catalysts for expansion
of those zones would be electrification of the Wrexham
to Bidston railway line, which is a matter that my office
is working on.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): I am delighted to hear
that the Wrexham to Bidston line project is under
consideration by the Secretary of State’s office. Will he
convene a meeting of MPs and Assembly Members
from north-east Wales, and of MPs from Cheshire, to
discuss the project and what steps can be taken, using
enterprise zones, to take it forward?
Mr Jones: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman
welcome that initiative. His proposal is certainly worthy
of consideration. I am having a number of meetings in
the immediate future with representatives of other enterprise
zones, and in due course I will write to him and perhaps
invite him to such a meeting.

623 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
624
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): It is indeed
heartening to hear the Secretary of State speak supportively
of the Wrexham to Bidston line upgrade project, which
we want to see happen. Does he welcome Network
Rail’s publication of its Long Term Planning Process,
which sees connections between Wrexham and Liverpool
being much improved, and can MPs from Merseyside
also be invited to any such meeting he might convene?
Mr Jones: I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady’s
comments. I think she would agree that electrification
of the railway line between Liverpool and Wrexham
would add greatly to the economies of north-east Wales,
and Wirral and the north-west of England. It is important
that we work with Merseyrail, and I hope to meet
Merseyrail in the very near future. I am grateful to the
hon. Lady for her support.
National Transport Infrastructure (M4)
7. Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con): What
discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues
and others on the contribution of the M4 to the UK’s
national transport infrastructure. [153891]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones): I
have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues,
Welsh Ministers and others on the strategic importance
of the M4 to the UK road network.
Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree
that it is excellent news that the talks between the Welsh
Assembly Government and the UK Government have
resumed after 10 years of inactivity on this subject? Is
he aware of the recent remarks of the director general
of the CBI, who indicated that progress on this issue,
coupled with electrification of the line through to Swansea,
would represent the biggest investment in the Welsh
economy for a generation?
Mr Jones: I certainly agree with that. Furthermore, I
would point out that the M4 is an extremely important
UK national asset and it is a great pity that it was not
upgraded long ago. Recently, I have had discussions
with Welsh Assembly Ministers on this issue, and I hope
that we will be able to make further progress.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Will the
Secretary of State press the Treasury to invest now in
the M4 above Newport and Port Talbot, going westwards,
and to reduce the Severn bridge tolls, to give a real
stimulus to the south Wales economy?
Mr Jones: I am heavily engaged with the Treasury on
that very issue. However, I must point out to the hon.
Gentleman that the road network in Wales is a devolved
competence, and it is a great shame that the Welsh
Government have not attended to this problem sooner,
before the situation declined to the extent that it has. We
are certainly engaged with the Treasury, and I hope that
we will be able to make announcements in the future.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the M4 in south
Wales is in desperate need of improvement, to relieve
congestion that is hampering economic development
there?
Mr Jones: Yes, the congestion on the M4 is causing
significant difficulty to Welsh commerce and, of course,
to Welsh motorists. I repeat that it is a great pity that the
Welsh Government did not carry out their statutory
function by upgrading that road long ago. This is a
matter on which I am engaged with the Welsh Government,
and I hope we will be able to make further announcements
in due course.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Will the Government
introduce road tolls on the new M4 relief road?
Mr Jones: I must point out that the Assembly
Government already have the competence to introduce
road tolls, under the Transport (Wales) Act 2006. That
is, of course, a matter for the Assembly Government.
Overseas Students
8. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD):
What discussions he has had with his ministerial
colleagues and others on increasing the accessibility of
educational institutions in Wales to students from
overseas. [153892]
10. Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): What
discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues
and others on increasing the accessibility of educational
institutions in Wales to students from overseas. [153894]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales
(Stephen Crabb): A thriving higher education sector is
vital to our economy and I recognise the significant
contribution that overseas students make to the sector.
The reforms we have introduced have tackled abuse of
the student migration system while protecting universities,
to ensure that they can continue to attract the best and
the brightest.
Roger Williams: I am sure that the Minister will want
to join me in congratulating Swansea university, whose
pro-vice chancellor I met last night, on the start of its
new, second campus, which will house 5,000 students.
Will my hon. Friend make every effort to publicise the
fact that Welsh universities are open for business and
open to applications from overseas students?
Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Welsh higher education institutions attract a greater
proportion of overseas students than similar institutions
in England, Northern Ireland or Scotland; they are at
the forefront of attracting overseas students. My right
hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the new
campus at Swansea university recently; it illustrates the
strong offer that the university now has.
Mr Mark Williams: Notwithstanding the Government’s
necessary direction of travel on immigration policy as
set out in the Queen’s Speech, may I ask my hon. Friend
to endorse the work of Aberystwyth university, which
plans to treble the number of its overseas students by
2017? That will be essential for the local economy, and
for building links with emerging economies throughout
the world.
Stephen Crabb: Aberystwyth is another university
with an extremely strong track record of attracting
overseas students. In fact, in an international survey of

625 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
626
students, it was voted the best overseas university for
student satisfaction and the best place to live. It is front
and centre of our efforts to attract more overseas students.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): What discussions
has the Minister had with the Home Office about the
impact on higher education institutions in Wales of
42,000 fewer students coming to the UK?
Stephen Crabb: There is a constant close dialogue
between us, the Home Office and the Minister for
Universities and Science about how we can attract more
overseas students to the UK. I do not know what
figures the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick
Smith) has seen, but if he looks at the figures for
overseas students coming to Wales, he will see that there
has been a 73% increase in the past five years, and those
numbers are continuing to go up. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. There is a large number of extremely
noisy private conversations taking place, including among
those on the Opposition Benches, who I am sure will
now wish to hear Jessica Morden.
Disabled People (Welfare Policies)
9. Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): What
assessment he has made of the effects of the
Government’s welfare policies on disabled people in
Wales. [153893]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales
(Stephen Crabb): The introduction of the personal
independence payment will ensure that we provide more
targeted support to those who need it most. Under our
reforms, a greater proportion of disabled recipients will
get the higher levels of support compared with disability
living allowance.
Jessica Morden: In Wales, 25,000 disabled people will
be hit by the bedroom tax, more than 40,000 are set to
lose their disability living allowance and more than
50,000 will see their benefits reduced. Does the Minister
agree with Disability Wales that a cumulative impact
assessment of the Government’s welfare changes is
urgently needed?
Stephen Crabb: I suggest that the hon. Lady looks at
the cumulative impact of the range of welfare reforms
that we are bringing in. Under universal credit, 200,000
households in Wales will see their entitlement go up by
about £140 a month, and a large proportion of the
people currently receiving disability living allowance in
Wales will also see their entitlement go up. She should
not necessarily believe the scaremongering from Opposition
Members.
National Assembly for Wales
11. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): If he will
consider proposing an alternative name for the National
Assembly for Wales as part of the Government’s response
to the Commission on Devolution in Wales; and if he
will make a statement. [153895]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones):
The Government have no plans to change the name of
the National Assembly for Wales.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): In the light of
the Silk review, which is likely to give fundraising powers
to the National Assembly, does the Secretary of State
not agree with me—and, more importantly, with the
leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R. T. Davies—
that now is the time to consider calling it the Welsh
Parliament?
Mr Jones: Well, have I got news for my hon. Friend!
The Silk commission has not yet completed its work; it
will report in the spring of next year. The title “National
Assembly”is used by the primary legislatures of countries
such as France and South Africa, and also by the
regional legislature of Quebec. The issue is what the
legislature does, rather than what it is called.
Corporation Tax
12. Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con): What assessment
he has made of the potential effects in Wales of the
reduction in the rate of corporation tax to 20%.
[153896]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones): In
total, the main rate of tax is set to fall by 8 percentage
points under this Government. The United Kingdom
will have the lowest rate in the G20, lower than most of
our main competitors.
Karen Lumley: As well as reducing corporation tax,
what else can the Government do to help small businesses
in Wales?
Mr Jones: The reduction in corporation tax will be of
immense benefit to Welsh small businesses. The Budget
did, of course, announce that the national insurance
employment allowance will benefit 35,000 businesses in
Wales, with 20,000 of them taken out of paying national
insurance contributions altogether.
Living Standards
13. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): What
assessment he has made of the effects of the
Government’s policies on the living standards of
people in Wales. [153897]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones):
This Government are committed to supporting those
on low and middle incomes and to assisting growth by
putting more money in the pockets of ordinary taxpayers.
For example, the cumulative effect of this Government’s
announced increases to the income tax personal allowance
will result in a cash gain of £705 per annum for a typical
basic rate taxpayer.
Susan Elan Jones: Some 400,000 individuals across
Wales will face real-terms cuts in tax credits and benefits
at a time when 13,000 millionaires across the UK will
get a tax cut. Does the Secretary of State think this is
right—yes or no?

627 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
628
Mr Jones: What I would say is that those on higher
earnings will be paying more tax under this Government
than they did during any year of the last Labour
Government. We are supporting families with lower
taxation and we are reducing the tax burden progressively;
it would appear that the hon. Lady’s party has no
interest at all in supporting the interests of hard-working
families.
PRIME MINISTER
The Prime Minister was asked—
Engagements
Q1. [154913] Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
(Lab): If he will list his official engagements for
Wednesday 15 May.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg): Ihave
been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime
Minister—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister must
be heard—from the start of the session to the end of the
session.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to
reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting
the United States for meetings with President Obama,
making the case for a transatlantic trade agreement
between the United States and the European Union
and chairing the high-level panel on development in
New York today. This morning, I had meetings with
ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my
duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings
later today.
Tristram Hunt: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister
for his answer. If Conservative Members of Parliament
do not have to support the Government on Europe, why
do Liberal Democrat MPs have to support the Government
on tripling tuition fees, top-down reorganisation of the
NHS, the bedroom tax and all the other wretched
policies of this Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Liberal Democrats, and
indeed Conservatives, are working together to clear up
the mess left by the hon. Gentleman’s party. It is this
Government who are delivering more apprenticeships
than ever before, delivering a cap on social care costs,
delivering a decent state pension for everybody and
clearing up the mess in the banking system left by that
man there—the right hon. Member for Morley and
Outwood (Ed Balls)—and so many other people on the
Labour Benches.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Will the
Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the only party in
this House offering an in/out referendum is the Conservative
party?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman
hates to be reminded of things that he and I have
actually done together when we have been on the same
side of the argument, but we spent 100 days in the early
part of this Parliament passing legislation, opposed by
the Labour party, that for the first time ever gives a
guarantee in law about when a referendum on Europe
will take place—when the rules next change or new
things are asked of the United Kingdom within the
European Union. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues
in the Conservative party are perfectly free for their own
reasons to move the goalposts, but this legislation is in
place and the people of Britain have a guarantee about
when a referendum will take place, and that is what I
suggest we should all go out and promote.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab):
I am sure that everyone is thrilled to see the Deputy
Prime Minister and, of course, myself at the Dispatch
Box today. This is meant to be Prime Minister’s questions,
however, yet once again the Prime Minister is not here.
Why is it that out of the last eight Wednesdays, the
Prime Minister has answered questions in this House
only once?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the Prime
Minister is unusually assiduous in coming to the House
to make statements. I think that the leader who should
be relieved that there is no Prime Minister’s Question
Time today is the leader of the right hon. and learned
Lady’s party. I am still reeling with dismay over the fact
that recently, on Radio 4, he denied 10 times that
borrowing would increase under Labour’s plans. Who
said that there is not enough comedy on Radio 4?
Ms Harman: We have all seen what the Prime Minister
has been doing in America. He has been on a London
bus in New York—something, incidentally, that we do
not see him doing a great deal when he is here. He has
also been busy explaining to President Obama the
benefits of Britain’s membership of the European Union.
Why is he able to do that in the White House, but not in
this House?
The Deputy Prime Minister: To be fair to the Prime
Minister—notwithstanding our other differences on this
subject—I think that he has always made it clear that he
believes in continued membership of the European
Union, if it is a reformed European Union.
There is a fundamental debate that we need to have in
this country about whether we are an open or a closed
nation, and about whether or not we stand tall in our
European neighbourhood. That debate will continue,
and the Prime Minister will continue to make his views
known.
Ms Harman: It is indeed an important debate, and we
have an important vote on an amendment to the Queen’s
Speech tonight, but the Prime Minister is out of the
country. Can the Deputy Prime Minister help the House?
If the Prime Minister were here today, would he be
voting for the Government or against the Government,
or would he be showing true leadership and abstaining?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned
Lady has used three questions to point out that the
Prime Minister is not here. That is a striking observation—a
penetrating insight into the affairs of state today.

629 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
630
Just two years ago, the right hon. and learned Lady’s
party rejected an opportunity to vote on legislation that
Government Members pushed through, giving the British
people, for the first time, a copper-bottomed legal guarantee
in relation to when a referendum would take place. Our
position is perfectly clear; hers is not.
Ms Harman: This is an extraordinary situation. The
Deputy Prime Minister has not told the House how the
Prime Minister would have been voting if he were here.
Is it that he does not know, is it because he does not
want to tell the House, or is it because he thinks that the
Prime Minister would probably have changed his mind
by the time we would have been told?
While the Prime Minister is bogged down in confusion
about Europe, people are suffering. Today’s figures
show that unemployment is up. More people are out of
work, and the number of people who have been out of
work for more than two years is at its highest since
1997. So what is today’s excuse?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned
Lady has commented on today’s figures. Of course
when anyone is without work it is an individual tragedy,
and we must always work to bring unemployment down,
but I think that she is giving the House a somewhat
partial snapshot. Full-time unemployment is actually
up by 10,000 this quarter, more people are employed in
the private sector than ever before, employment has
risen by 866,000 since the election, and the number of
women employed is the highest that it has ever been. Is
that not something that the right hon. and learned Lady
should celebrate rather than denigrate?
Ms Harman: We see complete complacency while
things are getting worse. The fact is that even those who
are in work are worse off. Wages are falling behind
prices, and figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies
show that as a result of all the Deputy Prime Minister’s
changes, families on lower and middle incomes are
worse off. Will he own up to that? Will he admit it?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Complacency? This from
a party that crashed the British economy, went on a
prawn cocktail charm offensive—sucking up to the
banks—which led to the disaster in the banking system
in the first place, and operated a tax system under which
a cleaner would pay more tax on his or her wages than a
hedge fund manager would on his or her shares?
Under this Government, the richest are paying more
in taxes every year than they did under Labour. Under
this Government, 24 million basic rate taxpayers will be
£700 better off next year than they were under Labour.
Under this Government, as of next April, nearly 3 million
people on low pay will be taken out of income tax
altogether. How about that for a record to be proud of?
Ms Harman: So the right hon. Gentleman votes for a
tax cut for millionaires and then comes to the House
and says the rich will be paying more. Three years into
this coalition Government everyone knows that the
country faces big problems, and what do we have? We
have a Prime Minister who is not just indecisive, not just
weak, but fast becoming a laughing stock.
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned
Lady mentions—as Labour party Members often do—the
upper rate of income tax. Under us, it is 45p.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): It was 40p under
Labour.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Hang on; my hon. Friend
is a great enthusiast. What was the rate under Labour?
What was it for 13 years? Was it 50p? No. Was it 45p?
No. The Labour rate was 40p, which is 5p lower. They
let the richest in this country off the hook; we didn’t.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con): Given the
Liberal Democrats’ commitment to a European Union
referendum, will my right hon. Friend see fit to help
facilitate Government time for a private Member’s Bill
on the subject, should that become available?
The Deputy Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows,
my party has always believed there should be a referendum
on Europe when the rules change and when new things
are being asked of the United Kingdom within the
European Union. That is what we had in our last
manifesto, and that is what we have now acted on in
government by passing legislation, together in the coalition,
just two years ago giving an absolute legal guarantee in
legislation for the first time ever that when the rules
change, there will be a referendum. By the way, I think it
is a question of when, not if, because the rules are
bound to change. I would just simply suggest that we
should stick to what we have done as a Government in
giving that guarantee to the British people, rather than
constantly shift the goalposts.
Q2. [154914] Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab):
Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister shares my dismay
at allegations of price fixing in the oil market. If so,
will he explain why he has consistently opposed
Opposition amendments for proper regulation of oil
and commodity prices by the Financial Conduct
Authority? Will he now accept that he was wrong,
accept the amendments from this side of the House,
and get petrol and diesel prices at the pump reduced?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is yet another example
of astonishing amnesia. What happened for 13 years?
Did the hon. Gentleman or any Labour Front-Bench
Members do anything? The investigation into alleged
price rigging—and, by the way, it is very important that
the oil companies concerned should of course co-operate
with a European Union institution that is doing very
good work on behalf of British consumers—stretches
right back to the years when Labour was in power.
What on earth did it do? Once again, it was asleep at the
wheel.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): I am sure the
Deputy Prime Minister shares the widespread revulsion
at the perpetrators of the crimes against the young and
vulnerable girls in Oxford. Does he agree that we now
look to the courts to impose the severest possible penalties
against these evil men, so that those poor girls can get
the justice they were denied by the police and the local
authority?

631 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
632
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sure my hon. Friend
speaks on behalf of everybody in this House, not only
about the sense of revulsion at these truly evil acts, but
about the fact that we should pay tribute to the courage
of these young women. The innocence of their childhoods
was so horridly destroyed by this evil gang, and we must
all pay tribute to the courage it must have taken for
them to come forward and give evidence. I certainly
agree with my hon. Friend that lessons should be learned
particularly about how the police forces and social
services work together, and that these people should be
handed down the severest possible sentences in response
to this reprehensible crime.
Q3. [154915] Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): The
Deputy Prime Minister talks about the individual
tragedy of unemployment, but a year ago this
Government made thousands of Remploy disabled
workers unemployed, and 69% of them are still
unemployed. They wanted to work, but it is costing the
Government more to keep them on the dole. Does that
not show that the Government are not just heartless,
but utterly incompetent?
The Deputy Prime Minister: As I hope the hon.
Gentleman knows, the approach we have taken to Remploy
was in response to independent recommendations made
by senior figures active in the area of disability and the
rights of those with disabilities. The recommendation
that came through was very clear: that it is simply not
right to say to people with disabilities that somehow
they should be hidden away and put in a separate silo,
and we should do what we can to give them support to
be part of the mainstream labour market along with
everybody else. That is why we have not in any way cut
the support for those workers in Remploy factories as
they make the transition from those factories into the
world of mainstream work.
Q4. [154916] Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con):
Does not the Deputy Prime Minister recall that at the
election he promised to go for an in/out referendum?
That has not taken place yet. Does he understand that
residents of the Isle of Wight, and many from
elsewhere, would feel betrayed if the Liberal Democrats
did not now support an amendment regretting that an
referendum is not included in the Gracious Speech?
The Deputy Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows,
our commitment was for a referendum when there is a
fundamental change in the relationship—[Interruption.]
Read our manifesto—I have. I helped to write it, and I
can guarantee that that is what it says, and we have
acted on that. I have an old-fashioned view—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Deputy Prime
Minister particularly minds being shouted at, but I do
not want him to be shouted at excessively. The House
should hear his answer, and certainly the people of the
Isle of Wight should hear his answer.
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is very kind of you,
Mr Speaker, thank you.
I have an old-fashioned view that when a Government
put forward a Queen’s Speech that has a lot of good
things in it—a cap on social care costs, a decent single-tier
pension for everybody and a cut in national insurance
contributions for employers to create jobs—we on this
side of the House should go out and promote it and not
spend days bemoaning what is not in it.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): The
police in Northern Ireland have stated that if the National
Crime Agency is unable to operate fully in Northern
Ireland it will have a detrimental impact on their ability
to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and to
combat serious and organised crime. Surely no political
party in Northern Ireland has a right to gamble with
the safety of the people of Northern Ireland, so what
do the Government propose to do to ensure that no one
is able to hold the people of Northern Ireland to
ransom and make Northern Ireland an easy target for
international crime?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sure everyone shares
my instinct that, as with all sensitive issues in Northern
Ireland, the more we can talk across parties and across
traditional divides and hostilities, the more we promote
the prosperity and security of the people of Northern
Ireland and of the people of the United Kingdom as a
whole.
Q5. [154918] Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD):
This Government have helped motorists in my
constituency by cutting fuel duty by 13p on the
mainland and 18p on the island, compared with
Labour’s disastrous plans. Now that the European
authorities are investigating the oil companies, will the
Government ensure that oil companies here obey the
rules and end any price fixing that might be going on?
It is important that the Government’s good policy on
fuel duty means that the benefit ends up in the pockets
of the motorists, not the oil companies.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon.
Friend for reminding the House that the price of fuel on
the forecourt would be 13p higher under the plans
embarked on by the Labour party—[Interruption.] Labour
Members hate to hear this and to be reminded of it, but
I am afraid it is true—the price would be 13p higher,
which would be a crippling additional cost of living for
millions of people in this country. I agree with him that
the large oil companies now under investigation for
these allegations should, of course, fully co-operate
with the European Commission.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab): May I put a
question to the Deputy Prime Minister that might go
against the grain for me? I have been vociferous in my
support for the Remploy organisation. Unfortunately,
the Remploy factory in my constituency is earmarked
for closure, and members of the work force received
letters in March advising them to seek alternative
employment. Some of them have done so successfully,
but on Monday they were given an interview and told
that they would not be allowed to leave their employment
with Remploy and, if they insisted on doing so, they
would not receive the severance package offered to
every other member of the work force. Will the Deputy
Prime Minister look into this?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course—I am sure
that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions will look into the specific issues that

633 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
634
the hon. Gentleman raises. As I said in response to the
earlier question, the thinking behind this is of course to
ensure that those who work in Remploy factories find
gainful employment in mainstream work. That is the
recommendation that came not from the Government
but from independent observers; they said this is the
best way to ensure that we do not ghettoise those with
disabilities in the labour market, and that is what we
will continue to work towards.
Q6. [154919] Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border)
(Con): Millions of people are struggling with their
electricity bills and our electricity infrastructure is
creaking. We have a solution in Wigton, where we are
developing a smart grid that will make our electricity
more reliable and more affordable. Will the Deputy
Prime Minister commit to visiting Wigton and make
the bold investment to roll a true smart grid out across
the country?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I would like to convey
my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman and to all
those in Wigton who have launched this smart energy
pilot project. I am delighted to hear that it has elicited
so much enthusiasm from the local community. It is, as
he says, the first step towards creating a smart energy
community. I know that officials from the Department
of Energy and Climate Change have met the pilot’s
network provider to discuss its benefits, and if it works
it is exactly the kind of thing that we should seek to
extend to other parts of the country.
Q7. [154920] Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire)
(Lab): Replying to earlier questions, the Deputy Prime
Minister blamed everybody but himself and his
Government for the fixing of fuel prices. I am old
enough to remember the Prices Commission, which
ensured that the price of petrol and other commodities
was the same across the whole land. Asda is able to do
that, but the oil companies are price fixing in my
constituency and elsewhere. Also, this Government
have introduced an increase in the VAT on fuel. What is
he going to do about all that?
The Deputy Prime Minister: As I said, we have scrapped
the fuel price hikes that were planned and decided upon
by the previous Government, but of course allegations
of price manipulation are incredibly serious. I am pleased
that the European Commission is taking the matter so
seriously and it is very important for us and for our
constituents, for whom petrol, diesel and fuel prices are
an incredibly important part of the weekly and monthly
household budget, that those companies now engage
seriously in looking at the allegations put to them by the
European Commission.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): I have here
a leaflet issued by the Liberal Democrats at the time of
the passage of the Lisbon treaty. On the front page is a
man posing as one Nick Clegg, who says:
“It’s time for a real referendum on Europe”—
an in/out referendum, not a referendum on a treaty
change. Was that man an impostor or just a hypocrite?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That man, whom I believe
to be me, was stating something then that my party
has restated ever since: that we should have a referendum
on Europe when the rules change. We said that—
[Interruption.] We said that at the time—[Interruption]
We said that at the time of the Lisbon treaty and we
said it in our manifesto. We even legislated on it, and we
will say it again. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Gray, I was thinking of
calling you to ask a question, but if you continue to
misbehave, I might not.
Q8. [154921] Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab):
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me, the
late Baroness Thatcher, senior Government members
on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the
Liberal Democrat manifesto, the Minister in charge of
the Royal Mail and his own Government, and does he
still agree with himself, that the privatisation of the
Royal Mail is a step too far?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We should welcome the
innovative way in which we are seeking to give workers
in Royal Mail a stake in the company. The hon. Gentleman’s
party used to believed in worker ownership, but as on so
many other issues it is still a blank sheet of paper when
it comes to public policy of any significance. The
Government are moving forward; the Opposition are
standing still.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
(LD): I have to tell my friend that I cannot support the
decision of the Prime Minister to go to the Commonwealth
Heads of Government conference in Sri Lanka because
of the human rights record of the Sri Lankan Government.
What can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us about how
we can respond to that terrible regime’s record? What
can we do to make sure that in future the Commonwealth
does not just say it believes in human rights, but does
something about it?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We are all aware that the
decision that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary
will attend the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of
Government meeting in Sri Lanka is controversial,
especially in the light of the despicable human rights
violations during the recent civil war. But I assure my
right hon. Friend that the Government condemn those
violations, the way in which political trials, regular
assaults on legal professionals and suppression of press
freedom continue, and the fact that too many
recommendations of the lessons learnt and reconciliation
commission have not been implemented. If such violations
continue, and if the Sri Lankan Government continue
to ignore their international commitments in the lead
up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting,
of course there will be consequences.
Q9. [154922] Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab):
When the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about youth
unemployment in 2011, he said that
“the coalition won’t sit on our hands and let a generation fall
behind.”
Now that we know that long-term youth unemployment
has trebled under this Government, why is he sitting on
his hands and refusing to match Labour’s jobs guarantee?
Is it because he has no influence in government or
because he does not care?

635 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
636
The Deputy Prime Minister: On the day in which
youth unemployment declined, in view of the fact that
youth unemployment went up remorselessly year after
year after year in the latter half of the Labour
Administration, and given that this Government are
introducing a £1 billion Youth Contract, which gives
everyone between the ages of 18 and 24 who has been
out of work for a certain period the opportunity to take
up an apprenticeship, subsidised work or a place on
work experience, it is pretty rich for the hon. Lady to
lecture us about the problems of youth unemployment.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): Has the Deputy
Prime Minister had time to reflect on this week’s analysis
of Yorkshire’s top 150 companies by the accountancy
firm BDO, which shows that in the last year businesses
in Yorkshire have seen an increase in revenues of £5 billion,
that investment is up 20%, that exports to emerging
markets are up 50%, and that 10,000 new jobs have been
created?
The Deputy Prime Minister: As an MP for a great
Yorkshire city, I of course want to join my hon. Friend
in celebrating the great achievements of businesses in
Yorkshire, particularly the rebirth of so many great
manufacturing companies. I am immensely proud that
this Government have been backing manufacturing,
after years of neglect under Labour.
Q10. [154923] Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab):
The Government’s much trumpeted Mesothelioma Bill
was introduced last week, but only those diagnosed
after 25 July 2012 will be compensated. Does the
Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is wrong and
unfair that the leeches in the insurance industry who
are bankrolling the Tory party are getting away with
millions and millions, when working class people who
have been negligently poisoned by their employers are
getting away with nothing?
The Deputy Prime Minister: What does the hon.
Gentleman think happened for 13 years under Labour?
I am hugely sympathetic, as I am sure everybody is, to
the plight of people who are unable to trace a liable
employer or insurer against whom they can bring a
claim. We announced our intention to bring forward
legislation to introduce the scheme on 25 July 2012, and
it is from that date that people have a reasonable expectation
that if they are diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer
and they meet the eligibility criteria they will receive a
payment. But because we have also decided to pay
dependants of people who have died from that cancer,
the scheme will not be able to pay dependants of every
person who has died, and that is why we have taken the
approach we have.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): The Deputy
Prime Minister is a great democrat as well as a Liberal,
and I salute him for that. Will he therefore stand by the
precise wording in this very fetching Liberal Democrat
leaflet that I happened to find on my desk this morning,
which says:
“Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU
will let the people decide our country’s future.”
Will he now stand by that solemn pledge to the people
of Britain and join us in the Lobby tonight?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I fully stand behind the
position that I took then and my party has taken ever
since, that when there is a change in the rules and new
things are asked of the United Kingdom within the
European Union, there should and there will be a
referendum. Not only that, we have done better since
we issued that leaflet in 2008: we legislated to guarantee
that to the British people for the first time in primary
legislation just two years ago. We spent 100 days debating
that in this House at the time. If my hon. Friend wants
to reinvent it all over again and keep picking away at the
issue, what will he give up from a fairly crowded Queen’s
Speech? Will he tell his constituents that we will not put
a cap on social care costs; we will not deliver a single tier
pension; we will not pass legislation to have a national
insurance contribution cut for employers? I think that
we should stick to the priorities of the British people,
which are growth and jobs.
Q11. [154924] Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance):
Three of my young constituents, Emma Carson, Emma
Magowan and Sophie Ebbinghaus, recently presented
me with posters they had made supporting the IF
campaign. They asked me to tell the Prime Minister of
their concerns for boys and girls growing up without
enough food to survive. Unfortunately, he is not here,
but what assurances can the Deputy Prime Minister
give them that the forthcoming G8 summit in Northern
Ireland will deliver real action to ensure that there
really is enough food for everyone?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Like the hon. Lady and
many Members on both sides of the House, I am a huge
supporter of the IF campaign, and I attended its launch
here in Westminster, as did many hon. Members. Of
course it is a total scandal that in 2013 nearly 1 billion
people globally are hungry or malnourished. I am delighted
about the co-operation between all the different campaign
groups in the IF campaign and the Government in
pushing forward a radical agenda, which has never
really been tried before, in the G8, under our presidency,
to ensure tax fairness and proper transparency in the
way primary resources are exploited in the developing
world and the way trade works for the poorest around
the planet. That is why we will work hand in hand with
the IF campaign during our G8 presidency.
Q12. [154925] Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): In
2008 the Independent Reconfiguration Panel made a
series of recommendations in response to an attempt
by my local NHS trust to downgrade maternity
services at Eastbourne district general hospital. The
IRP recommendations were, in my view and those of
eminent local clinicians, never properly introduced,
which has now led to safety issues that, perversely, have
enabled the trust to implement the service changes that
were originally rejected by the IRP. Will the Deputy
Prime Minister look at addressing that anomaly and
ensure that hospitals implement IRP recommendations
robustly and that that is audited, including at
Eastbourne district general hospital?
Mr Speaker: Order. There is probably scope for an
Adjournment debate on the back of that, so let us have
a brief answer.

637 Oral Answers
15 MAY 2013
Oral Answers
638
The Deputy Prime Minister: I pay tribute to my hon.
Friend for all his work on behalf of his local community
in relation to his local hospital. My understanding is
that the changes to maternity services at Hastings hospital
are temporary and that, of course, no permanent changes
will be made without full public consultation. He makes
an important point about the role of the Independent
Reconfiguration Panel and I will ask the Secretary of
State for Health to discuss the matter furtherwith him.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab):
In answer to the question the right hon. Member for
Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) asked
on Sri Lanka, the Deputy Prime Minister gave a long
list of atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan Government.
Why, then, are his Government going to the Commonwealth
Heads of Government summit in Sri Lanka, why are
they announcing that six months ahead of time, and
why do they want to see an alleged war criminal as
Chair of the Commonwealth?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that we all accept
the controversy and unease about this matter, but by
attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government
meeting in Sri Lanka we will be using the opportunity
to cast a spotlight on the unacceptable abuses there. As
I said earlier, of course there will be consequences if the
conduct of the Sri Lankan authorities does not change.
The Commonwealth matters to us all, and it is based on
a number of values. Where I accept the hon. Lady’s
implicit criticism is in relation to this point: all
Commonwealth Governments should do more to not
only talk about those values, but ensure that they are
properly monitored and enforced.
Q13. [154926] Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con):
The Special Olympics movement showcases the
abilities and achievements of learning-disabled athletes
around the world while delivering positive inclusion,
education and health outcomes. The British Special
Olympic games will take place this summer in Bath.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that the
Government are doing all they can to spread the legacy
from last year’s Olympics across all disability sports,
including the Special Olympic games?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I can give my hon.
Friend that assurance. As he knows, last summer my
right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed Lord
Coe to be his legacy ambassador. A Paralympics legacy
advisory group has also been established. I know that
Lord Coe’s team is meeting Special Olympics GB shortly
to discuss potential links between the London 2012
legacy and the national games to be held in Bath later
this summer.

639 15 MAY 2013 Petrol Prices
640
12.35 pm
Petrol Prices
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
(Mr Edward Davey): With permission, Mr Speaker, I
would like to make a statement on petrol prices and the
cost of living.
On 14 May, officials from the European Commission
directorate-general for competition carried out
unannounced inspections at the premises of several
companies active in the crude oil, refined oil products
and biofuels sectors, including Statoil, BP and Shell.
The Commission has concerns that the companies may
have colluded in reporting distorted prices to a price
reporting agency to manipulate the published prices for
a number of oil and biofuel products. Any such behaviour,
if established, may amount to violations of European
antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business
practices and abuses of a dominant market position.
This Government are deeply concerned by any allegation
that prices for consumers could have been artificially or
unnecessarily driven up. The UK Government and
regulators will provide any assistance necessary to the
European investigators, and we expect the companies
concerned to fully comply with these investigations.
However, these investigations are at an early stage and
the Commission has made it clear that investigations do
not imply guilt. Until the facts are clear, it would be
inappropriate to comment further on this investigation.
I should also be clear to the House that these investigations
are not directly linked to the allegations of market
manipulation in the gas markets, which Ofgem and the
Financial Services Authority are continuing to review.
This Government believe strongly that it is in our
mutual interest for motorists and businesses to be confident
that they are being treated fairly, and that when wholesale
costs come down, these reductions are passed on
transparently and without unnecessary delay. That is
why we welcomed the Office of Fair Trading’s decision
to look into the market for road fuels in late 2012. At
that time, the OFT did not receive evidence on the
impact on pump prices of potential manipulation of
derivatives markets and the accuracy of reported prices
of crude and wholesale road fuel that built the case for
such an investigation. However, it did set out that it
believes such manipulation is possible and encouraged
market participants to approach the OFT and FSA, as
appropriate, if they had evidence of such practices.
In a case such as this, where there are potentially
cross-border issues, it is more appropriate for the
Commission to lead the investigation. The OFT has
and will continue to co-operate fully with the Commission.
This Government have taken direct action to ease the
burden on motorists. Due to action taken in this year’s
Budget, fuel duty will have been frozen for nearly three
and a half years, the longest duty freeze for over 20 years.
That builds on previous action to cut fuel duty, abolish
the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator, introduce
a fair fuel stabiliser and scrap two increases planned by
the previous Government. As a result of Government
actions, average pump prices are 13p per litre lower
than if the Government had implemented the fuel duty
escalator, and they are forecast to be 18p per litre lower
by the end of the Parliament. Furthermore, as reported
by the OFT, the UK consistently has among the lowest
pre-tax petrol and diesel prices in Europe.
In the OFT’s investigation it identified an absence of
pricing information on motorways as a concern and did
not rule out taking action in some local markets if there
is persuasive evidence of anticompetitive behaviour.
The Government are now acting on this recommendation
and increasing transparency of motorway fuel prices.
More widely, this Government’s reform of the
competition regime will improve the speed, robustness
and independence of decision making in UK competition
enforcement. Creating a single Competition and Markets
Authority and modernising its competition toolkit will
improve markets and help consumers and businesses by
providing greater coherence in competition practice
and a more streamlined approach to decision making.
The Government are also publishing a draft consumer
rights Bill to give consumers clearer rights in law and to
ensure that consumer rights keep pace with technological
advances. That will give consumers greater confidence
to take up new products, switch suppliers and make
online purchases.
Although we cannot control volatile world energy
prices, we can still help people get their bills down. The
easiest ways to get energy bills down quickly are to get
consumers paying the lowest possible tariffs and to
reduce the amount of energy that is wasted.
We are ensuring that all households get the best deal
for their gas and electricity by using the Energy Bill to
give statutory backing to Ofgem’s retail market review
proposals. Those proposals require energy suppliers to
move consumers on poor value dead tariffs to the
cheapest standard variable rate tariff, so that no customers
are left behind on a poor value, out-of-date tariff. They
will also create a new tariffs framework to reduce the
number of tariffs that suppliers can offer to four per
payment method and simplify tariffs so that the market
is much more manageable for consumers. Customers
will have personalised information from their supplier
on their bills about the cheapest tariff that the supplier
offers and any savings that they could make by moving
to it.
These proposals will put consumers in the driving
seat, giving them clearer choices and incentivising companies
to compete hard for their custom. We hope that Ofgem
can keep to its projected timetable, which could see
measures begin to be implemented from summer 2013,
with full implementation expected by March 2014.
Through the green deal and the roll-out of smart
meters, we are helping people to reduce the amount of
energy that they use so that they can have warmer
homes for less and lower bills than otherwise. We know
that the poorest and the most vulnerable often struggle
to pay their energy bills. Through direct payments, such
as the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment,
we are helping them directly to manage their bills.
We are also determined to ensure that Ofgem has the
necessary powers so that consumers do not lose out
when energy companies break the rules. Although Ofgem
can fine energy companies up to 10% of their annual
turnover for breaking the rules, unless it can agree
compensation for consumers with energy companies,
such fines are currently paid into the Consolidated
Fund. That is why we are legislating, through the Energy

641 Petrol Prices
15 MAY 2013
Petrol Prices
642
Bill, to give Ofgem consumer redress order powers.
Those powers will fill the gap and give Ofgem a powerful
weapon to ensure that consumers are treated fairly.
We take very seriously any allegations of price
manipulation. The Government are determined to ensure
that consumers and motorists get the best possible
value for money. We will continue to take the necessary
action to deliver value to the consumer.
12.42 pm
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): With the greatest
respect, I say to the Secretary of State that no amount
of tariff simplification or sorting out retail at the pump
will deal with the problem that we face today, which is
allegations about how energy and petrol are bought and
sold, and the way in which the market works.
The allegations that have been made about the three
oil companies, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Statoil, as
well as the price reporting agency, Platts, are extremely
concerning. They suggest that those companies have
both colluded in reporting distorted prices and prevented
others from participating in the price assessment process,
with a view to distorting the published price. If the
allegations are true, there has been shocking behaviour
in the oil market which should be dealt with strongly. I
therefore have three questions for the Secretary of State.
First, the Secretary of State will know that the OFT
inquiry concluded at the end of January that the UK
fuel market was operating fairly, and that a Competition
Commission inquiry was not needed. Given the amendment
that has been tabled for debate later today, it will not be
lost on hon. Members that it is the European Commission,
not any British authority, that is investigating this situation.
In light of today’s allegations, will the Secretary of State
say whether any British authorities have plans to revisit
their own investigations? If the EU investigation uncovers
any wrongdoing, it will raise serious questions about
the effectiveness of our authorities.
Secondly, last year we tabled amendments calling for
commodities such as oil and gas to be part of the
Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory net, but Ministers
refused to act. We argued that the regulatory perimeter
needed to be explicitly set out in the Financial Services
Act 2012, and that it was insufficient just to add references
to LIBOR. Does the Secretary of State now accept that
the Office of Fair Trading and the FCA should be
explicitly equipped to tackle attempts at rigging commodities
trading, whether spot trading, forward contracts, futures
contracts hedging or benchmark pricing indices?
Thirdly, when the allegations of price fixing in the gas
market were made last year, we warned that opaque
over-the-counter deals and a reliance on price reporting
agencies left the market vulnerable to abuse. The latest
allegations of price fixing in the oil market raise similar
questions. I tabled a parliamentary question in February
asking for an update on the earlier investigations, but
the Government were unable to provide any more
information. Can the Secretary of State give us any
assurance that progress is being made, and that we will
not need another EU investigation to get to the bottom
of what is happening in the gas market?
As we all know, LIBOR was a massive scandal,
but global commodity markets include a vast range of
products, including grains, fibre, other food, precious
metals and energy, affecting every household. Consumers
need to know that the prices they pay for their energy or
petrol are fair, transparent and not being manipulated
by traders. I hope that the Secretary of State will assure
the House that no stone will be left unturned to establish
the truth behind the allegations.
Mr Davey: I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply.
May I make it absolutely clear to her and the House
that we take the allegations extremely seriously? If it
turns out that hard-pressed motorists and consumers
have been hit in the pocket by the manipulation of
markets, the full force of the law should come down
upon those responsible. Let there be no doubt about
that.
However, I am surprised that the right hon. Lady
wishes the Government to interfere directly in competition
investigations. It was her Government who rightly moved
competition authorities on to an independent basis. We
believe it is very important to have independent competition
authorities, because that strengthens their ability to act.
[Interruption.] She asks from a sedentary position what
they are doing, but arguably we could ask what they
were doing under the Labour Government. I hope that
we can get cross-party consensus that competition
authorities should be independent.
It is good news that the European Commission
directorate-general for competition has acted, and I
would have thought that the right hon. Lady would
welcome that. When there are cross-border allegations,
it is important that the European Union can act.
The right hon. Lady asked whether we would act on
the effectiveness of competition authorities. We have.
Indeed, I was the Competition Minister who proposed
the changes to the competition regime inherited from
the previous Government, which are strengthening it.
Bringing in the Competition and Markets Authority
will make our competition bodies and regime far more
robust, so we have a very good record on the issue.
The right hon. Lady asked whether there should be
wider powers to deal with commodities trading. An
issue to be considered—we have seen it with LIBOR
and the gas market manipulation allegations and now
we see it today—is how price reporting agencies operate.
They are unregulated bodies, as they were under the
previous Government. She will know that the International
Organisation of Securities Commissions has been looking
into both price reporting agencies in general and oil
markets specifically. It reported to the G20 last November,
stating that it had potential concerns about the operation
of the global market. It did not refer to any particular
allegations of manipulation, but there is an ongoing
debate, globally as well as in this country, about how we
deal with price reporting agencies given that there have
been instances of market manipulation. We are taking
action; the previous Government did not.
The right hon. Lady’s final question was what was
the state of play with respect to the Ofgem review of gas
market manipulation. She described it as an investigation,
but I clarify that it is a review of the allegations. She will
also know that Ofgem is independent. We do not expect
an independent investigator or regulator to give the
Government day-by-day reports as that would go against
its independent nature and reduce its power. I would be
surprised if the Labour party wanted to reduce the
power of our independent regulators. These are serious

643 Petrol Prices
15 MAY 2013
Petrol Prices
644
[Mr Davey]
allegations, and we stand behind our independent
competition authorities and believe they will take action
on behalf of the consumer, as they should.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Despite the fact that
the Government have cut and frozen fuel duty, prices at
the pump have gone up by 60% since 2009. Last year a
motion for a full OFT inquiry into price fixing by oil
companies was passed unanimously in the House. We
were approached by a whistleblower who suggested that
the things we have seen over the past two days had been
going on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the
OFT carried out a limp-wristed, lettuce-like inquiry,
when it should have made a full 18-month inquiry into
what has been going on? Does he also agree that if
proved true, this is a national scandal for the oil companies
concerned, and the Government should look at changing
the law and put people in prison for fixing oil prices?
This has caused misery for millions of motorists up and
down the country. Finally, if the accusations are proved,
will he impose harsh penalties on all oil companies
involved and give the billions of pounds in penalties
back to the motorist?
Mr Speaker: I have been generous with the hon.
Gentleman, which I hope the House will realise, but I
cannot help but feel that his appetite would be satisfied
only by a full day’s debate on the matter. He will have to
make do with what he has had so far.
Mr Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s questions,
and I pay tribute to the way he has campaigned on this
issue. He has made a big impact in the House and we
have reacted to his campaigns with respect to fuel
duty—something the Labour party never did. The OFT
is a strong, independent body. It has powers and carried
out its investigation. It received a call for information
and it is responding to that. It made some warnings. As
my hon. Friend knows, it was concerned about a number
of areas, not least the transparency of petrol and diesel
prices at motorway service stations, which I referred to
in my statement. I know that as a result of that, my hon.
Friend—indeed, the whole House—will be concerned
to ensure that any evidence is put before the European
Commission and the UK competition authorities. If
any Members of the House or members of the public
have such information, I call on them to pass it to the
competition authorities.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
(SNP): My constituents in the Hebrides have felt ripped
off by the highest fuel prices in the UK for years, and
shockingly we now hear of raids associated with suspected
price fixing on huge oil companies—household names.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that if there are any
fines, they are passed on to hard-pressed motorists who
might have been ripped off, so that my constituents in
Lewis, Harris, Uist and Barra, and everybody else’s
constituents, can feel the benefits of any justice? Do
these events not call for a review of the OFT’s methodology?
Mr Davey: It is important for the hon. Gentleman,
and all right hon. and hon. Members, to realise that
these are very early days in the investigation. These are
allegations only and we should not jump the gun. As he
knows, because the allegations are so serious, both UK
and European law allows competition authorities to
levy serious fines—dependent, obviously, on the particular
transgression—should a company be found guilty. The
hon. Gentleman will have to wait, but he can be reassured
that there are powers to levy heavy fines.
Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con):
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s robustness regarding
such manipulation—if, indeed, the raids produce evidence
of such manipulation—but will he tell the House how
long he thinks it will be before the European Commission
is able to report on the issue? In line with those of my
hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon),
and others, my constituents in South East Cambridgeshire
cannot accept that the market is working fairly. In our
area we pay a higher price for petrol and diesel than in
most other parts of mainland England, yet only 20 miles
away, the same retailers and supermarkets are selling
road fuel for 1p, 2p, 3p, or in some cases 5p, a litre less.
That cannot be a fair marketplace.
Mr Davey: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s
question and his support for the robust action that we
propose to take, supporting our competition authorities.
He asked how long it will take, but I am afraid it is
impossible to give a straight answer to that. We have
seen with the Ofgem and FSA review into allegations of
gas market inflation that such things can take some
time, in order to ensure that the allegations are looked
into seriously and robustly, as consumers and markets
should expect. Equally, I cannot give a timetable for the
conclusion of the European Commission’s investigations.
My right hon. Friend and other colleagues are concerned
that the OFT did not find problems in the market, and I
have heard that point. It is worth remembering, however,
that not only did it mention the absence of price information
on motorways, as I mentioned earlier, but it said that it
did not rule out taking action in some local markets if
there is persuasive evidence of anticompetitive behaviour.
The OFT is ready to act, but we need the evidence.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Obviously,
it is extremely welcome that the European Commission
has taken the steps it has, but when the Secretary of
State heard it was doing that, did he speak to the OFT
and ask why it did not find the same problems only
three months ago?
Mr Davey: We heard about the raid of these companies’
offices late yesterday evening. We have seen the OFT’s
statement and know that it was accompanying European
Commission officials, and we will no doubt find out
more as the day goes on. The hon. Lady must remember
that these competition bodies are independent, and I
hope she will reject the idea that we should get ourselves
into these investigations. We will seek more information,
but we will not be interfering in the investigations.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): This is an
issue of parliamentary sovereignty as much as anything
else. One thing people say, and one of the most pernicious
opinions in the wider electorate, is that the Government
only look after big business and not ordinary working
families, and—most importantly—that quangos are nonaccountable.
When will the Secretary of State look hard

645 Petrol Prices
15 MAY 2013
Petrol Prices
646
at the efficacy and accountability of the Office of Fair
Trading and, if necessary given its lamentable performance,
ensure that heads will roll?
Mr Davey: Although I strongly support the sovereignty
of this Parliament, for some matters the outcome for
consumers can be improved when they are given to an
independent or European body. We give authority to
the independent central Bank—the Bank of England—
because evidence and theory has shown that an independent
body can set interest rates in a more effective way. The
analysis, not just in this country and Europe but in
America, is that an independent competition body is
the most effective way. When I was Minister responsible
for competition in the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills, I looked thoroughly across the whole competition
regime and made proposals that have gone through the
House to bring together the OFT and the Competition
Commission into a more robust, speedy and effective
regime. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend, Members
of the House and the public that this Government are
determined to have the most effective competition regime
in the world.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab): As the
Secretary of State will be aware, there has been a
long-term disconnect between the price of oil on the
market and the price at the pump. He will also know
that over the decades, numerous inquiries have been
made by the OFT and other competition authorities
into the oil and petrol market, but not one has uncovered
what is now alleged to have happened. The other issue
for the consumer is the LIBOR market, which my right
hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline
Flint) mentioned. Fines were paid by shareholders and
customers in extra charges, but the men responsible
walked away free. We do not want the same thing to
happen in the oil and gas industry, and the Secretary of
State is in danger of being complacent in relying simply
on the competition authorities.
Mr Davey: We are not complacent at all. We stand by
the independent bodies. If it was not for them taking
action, we would not have had this statement. They are
acting, and we should support them. It is good that the
European Commission competition DG has looked not
only at the UK, but across Europe. Many of those
markets are integrated, cross-border markets, so it is
vital we take that view. People should not rush to
judgment. We must wait for the outcome of the
investigations, but the fact they are happening shows
that the public authorities do not treat those matters
with complacency.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker: Order. I gently point out to the House
that there is a lot of interest in this important statement,
which I am keen to accommodate, but, in the final day
of the debate on the Gracious Speech, there are literally
dozens of colleagues wishing to contribute, so some
self-discipline from Back and Front Benches alike is
urgently required.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): The allegations
are serious, and yet the EU energy portal told me this
morning that the pre-tax and duty prices of diesel and
petrol in the UK are among the cheapest in Europe—
indeed, they are cheaper than in Germany, France and
Holland. Given that, will the Secretary of State tell us
whether the focus of the inquiry is the UK market or
the cross-border European market, which, on the facts,
would appear to have bigger problems?
Mr Davey: My hon. Friend is right that pre-tax petrol
and diesel prices in the UK are among the lowest in the
EU. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent, and it is
right that there are investigations—I am sure he was not
suggesting that the competition authorities should not
investigate. He will know that, as I said in my statement,
one issue surrounding the investigation is the reports
made by different companies to a price reporting agency.
We must wait to find out whether that affects domestic
or European markets, but it is the reporting agencies
and the prices they report that concern our competition
authorities.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab):
One aspect of the industry we need to consider is the
massive number of refineries that have closed throughout
Europe recently. Will the Secretary of State ensure he
does all he can to work with companies who are investing
in our refining capacity to ensure there is more competition
in that part of the market?
Mr Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention
the impact of the refining industry on the wider market.
My Department is working with the refining industry
and various operators in the sector to ensure we have a
healthy refining industry in this country. The margins
for refineries have been seriously squeezed in recent
times. It is critical that we ensure fuel security, which
means we need a healthy refining industry.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con): In supporting
the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for
Harlow (Robert Halfon), I commend the Secretary of
State for making changes to the legislation he inherited
from the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that fines
levied in the UK are returned to consumers rather than
to companies. However, I urge him to make urgent
representations to the European Commission to ensure
that, if the investigation leads to fines, the detriment
to UK consumers, taxpayers and motorists is returned
to those UK consumers, taxpayers and motorists.
Mr Davey: My hon. Friend makes an interesting
point. He is right that the Government are legislating to
ensure that, when Ofgem finds misdemeanours by
companies, fines go to the consumer and not to the
Consolidated Fund. That is an extra tooth for the
independent regulator, and puts consumers’ rights ahead,
where they should be. He asks me to make representations
to the European Commission to see whether European
law can be amended to mirror the change we have just
made. Clearly, there is a case for that, but I may need to
speak to my colleagues in the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills before I make unilateral
representations.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP):
The general public will have two things in mind: open
competition and cheaper prices at the pump. Beyond
the European Commission ruling—the Secretary of

647 Petrol Prices
15 MAY 2013
Petrol Prices
648
[Mr Gregory Campbell]
State has said that we do not know the timing of
it—what steps will the Government and the OFT take
to ensure that prices come down, that people see openness
and transparency, and that the Government reduce fuel
duty rather than put increases on hold?
Mr Davey: Like every right hon. and hon. Member,
the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the price of fuel
and the impact that that has on household budgets. I
know from speaking to right hon. and hon. Members
who represent rural constituencies how the price of fuel
impacts on them. That is one reason why my right hon.
Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has paid
such attention to the matter since he entered Her Majesty’s
Treasury. The Government’s record on bearing down
on fuel duty, which is one thing we can directly influence,
is exemplary. We have had the longest freeze in fuel duty
for 20 years—that is us playing our part.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): The allegations
of price rigging that are being investigated by the European
Commission directorate-general for competition stretch
over nearly a decade—they go back over years under
the Secretary of State’s Government and over even
more years under the previous one. At 8p a litre on the
price of fuel, the scale of the price distortions is potentially
vast. Given the scale of the impact on consumers’
expenditure and on our economies, how can fines
compensate consumers in Britain and on the continent?
Mr Davey: My hon. Friend is right to ask that question,
but I remind him and the House that we are talking
about allegations, and that we are at the early stage of
investigations. It is important that people remember
that.
One benefit of the investigations by our independent
competition authorities is that we can try to ensure that
our markets work more effectively. If manipulation is
proved, and if it is proved that the manipulation led to
higher prices, we could see lower prices, which would be
welcomed by many outside the House.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): In January, the
OFT did not find no evidence; it found evidence of
price fixing, albeit limited evidence. At that time, did
the Secretary of State ask what the evidence was? If so,
what consideration did he give it, and what actions did
he recommend as result?
Mr Davey: I have not seen that specific evidence, but I
know that it was very small and that the OFT felt that
the evidence was unable to lead it to a further investigation.
However, it was clear that the OFT announced a call for
information—the Government supported that. The OFT
wants people to bring forward information, which is
exactly what they should do.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): Commuters
from my constituency to Leeds, Manchester and beyond
who have been suffering the nightmare of the M62
roadworks will welcome the fact that fuel duty is 13p per
litre lower under this Government than it would have
been under the previous one. However, I echo the
suggestion that fines, if they are levied on oil companies
found guilty of price fixing, should be passed on to
consumers and hard-pressed commuters.
Mr Davey: I believe that the law does not currently
allow fines levied by the European Commission to be
passed on directly to consumers, but consumers will
benefit from any lower prices that result from freer and
fairer markets, which Government Members are determined
to see.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): What is the Secretary
of State doing to prevent another rip-off by Électricité
de France, which has an atrocious record in cost overruns
and delays, and which demands a 40-year guarantee of
twice the current price for building Hinkley Point, at a
time when abundant sources of energy are being discovered
throughout the world? Will he guarantee that the House
debates that before a deal is done with EDF?
Mr Davey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on
getting the subject of nuclear power into this statement.
Some of the tests in our negotiations with EDF on a
contract for difference in relation to the proposed nuclear
reactor at Hinkley Point C are to ensure that we get
value for money and that the proposal is affordable.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): While the
European Commission’s involvement is welcome, will
my right hon. Friend outline what more UK authorities,
such as the Competition Commission and the OFT, can
do to ensure that fuel duty cuts made by the Government
end up in the pockets of motorists rather than in the
coffers of oil companies?
Mr Davey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. UK
authorities are working extremely closely with European
competition authorities. Indeed, they accompanied them
on their raids of various companies’ offices. They are
active in this investigation, and I hope he takes reassurance
from that.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): The
Minister constantly congratulates his Government on
keeping the price of petrol down. Why then, when I
travel to America, do I find that consumers there pay
half the price for their fuel than we pay in the United
Kingdom? Why is the price of fuel in the Irish Republic
10p less than it is over the border in Northern Ireland?
Mr Davey: The difference in the tax levied in the
United States on petrol and diesel might be one of
the main explanations. I have not made a study on the
difference in price between Northern Ireland and
the Republic of Ireland either, but that might also have
something to do with duty differentials.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): My constituents
will be very concerned about the price-fixing allegations
and will want the oil company executives, if found
guilty, to go to prison. Today’s findings have come
about as a result of unannounced inspections by the
European Commission. To what extent does the Secretary
of State believe that the OFT, Ofgem and the Financial
Services Authority are undertaking unannounced
inspections in their inquiries? If they are not, should
they not be encouraged to do so?

649 Petrol Prices
15 MAY 2013
Petrol Prices
650
Mr Davey: It is interesting that my hon. Friend
supports the use of these powers by the European
Commission competition directorate-general. I am grateful
that he recognises that it is important to have an
independent, strong competition body at European level.
I think people will have noticed his support for that,
and I am grateful for it. He asked whether the OFT,
Ofgem and other regulators involved in enforcing
competition have those powers. I believe that they do. If
I am wrong, I will write to them. He will recognise, as I
hope everyone does, that it is not for the Government to
tell an independent regulatory body to go and do dawn
raids. It is up to them to decide to do that, based on the
evidence. We strongly support them when they use
those powers, and we strongly support them in the
powers they need to gather the information ahead of
such raids. If the OFT and Ofgem were to make such
raids based on proper information, we would support
them.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth)
(Lab): When did the Secretary of State find out about
the European Commission investigation? If the investigation
had not been undertaken by the EU, would the Government
have been any the wiser?
Mr Davey: I found out about it late last night. We do
not know on what evidence the Commission decided to
launch the raids. Apparently, there were suspicions that
companies had been giving a price reporting agency
false information about prices in the market. We need
to know more about what information it had. The
question is whether the UK competition authorities
had similar information. To date, my understanding is
that they did not.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
(LD): I remind the House of my entry in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests. The hard-pressed motorists
of the north-east of Scotland—for whom a car is an
essential, not a luxury—will want to be confident that
they are paying the best price possible for their fuel at
the pump. To that end, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s
commitment to help the European Commission and to
encourage the companies to co-operate fully with the
inquiry. Will he take forward to the Commission the
need to co-operate with the G20 if there is any evidence
that the alleged price fixing extends beyond EU borders?
Mr Davey: My hon. Friend has been a doughty
defender of motorists in north-east Scotland, making
the point, with other hon. Members, that people in
rural areas often depend on their car and therefore have
no choice but to use it. The G20 received the report
from the International Organisation of Securities
Commissions in November and I believe it is being
looked at carefully. The issue of price reporting agencies
and price benchmarks is one that both UK and global
regulators are paying much greater attention to. One
might ask the question: why were they not being paid
attention to before?
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/
Co-op): My right hon. Friend the Member for Don
Valley (Caroline Flint) made the point that if this is
happening in energy, there is every reason to believe
that it could well apply to other commodities. What are
the Government going to do, with the EU if necessary,
to be proactive and to ensure that there is no price
fixing in other areas of international trade? We do not
want to come back in a few years’ time and wonder how
we are going to compensate consumers in other fields.
Mr Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is
behind the times. We are already acting at both a global
and a European level to support work that looks into
how benchmarks and price reporting agencies operate,
and to check that there is no danger of price manipulation
or of rigging the markets in another way. The Government
are taking this very seriously. We are working with a
number of bodies, including the International Organisation
of Securities Commissions, and are operating at EU
and G20 level. We are very proactive on this issue.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): My constituents
are concerned about why they pay more for a gallon of
petrol than those in other parts of the country, so they
will welcome the investigation. What is the Secretary of
State doing at a European level to ensure that the
European Commission does not cut off this country’s
access to Canadian oil sands, which has the potential to
bring down prices at the pump for everybody?
Mr Davey: The Under-Secretary of State for Transport,
my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)
is actively engaged at the European Council on this. It is
a rather more complicated question than my hon. Friend
the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) implies.
It is not so much about access to our markets, but how
those tar oil sands and any fuel produced from them are
rated in terms of their carbon content. The debate is
complicated, but the UK and my hon. Friend in the
Department for Transport are pushing hard to obtain a
fair outcome.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP): The
Centre for Economics and Business Research reported
in March 2013 that the average weekly spend on vehicle
fuel is higher in Northern Ireland than in comparable
regions in Britain, and takes up a significantly larger
proportion of consumers’ net income. What further
action will the Government take to lower fuel duty to
provide equality for all consumers?
Mr Davey: As the hon. Lady will know, my right hon.
Friend the Chancellor keeps these issues under constant
review. He has an extremely strong record of delivering
fuel duty freezes and not proceeding with rises proposed
by the previous Government. I am sure that he will
consider her question and early representation for next
year’s Budget.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): If
there has been market manipulation by big companies
in the oil market, then as well as consumers suffering,
small independent suppliers and retailers who were not
part of the scam will also have suffered. Independents
are important in rural areas, as they are often the only
supplier. While the Secretary of State will not want to
intervene directly with the regulatory bodies he mentioned,
I hope he will give them the hurry-up, because we want
to ensure that no more damage is done to independent
suppliers in this country.

651 Petrol Prices
15 MAY 2013
Petrol Prices
652
Mr Davey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising
the issue of businesses, in particular small and medium-sized
enterprises. If the allegations are proved to be correct,
and petrol and diesel prices have been higher than they
otherwise should have been in a fair market, then they
will have been hit as well. He will know from previous
debates on petrol and diesel prices the impact that fuel
prices have on the wider haulage industry. It is vital that
we get to the bottom of this not just for consumers, but
for our whole economy.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): If
anything untoward is discovered at the end of this
process, it will not show the OFT in a good light. While
price is important, the quality of fuel that people purchase
is also an issue. I find that more and more of my
constituents complain about poor mileage from cheaper
fuel. I put to the Secretary of State a quick calculation:
2p a litre extra and two miles per gallon is far better
than cheaper fuel. I have asked Which? to conduct a
survey on fuel quality. Does the Secretary of State agree
that we should be looking at that too, and will he
support an investigation into the quality of the fuel that
people are purchasing at the pumps?
Mr Davey: That is an extremely interesting point. I
hope the hon. Gentleman is liaising with his local
trading standards department, in case there are any
serious problems, but I shall certainly ask my officials to
look into it. It is not just the quality of the fuel,
however, but fuel efficiency that matters: we need far
more fuel efficient cars and we need standards that send
a signal to the industry that we want it to make its cars
more fuel efficient. The Government have a proud
record of supporting the electric motor industry, and
the UK is beginning to be a real producer of electric
cars.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Daventry
residents will be unsurprised by the Commission’s raids
on oil companies last night. In fact, they are fed up to
the back teeth with paying way more than other consumers
nearby. I was interested in what the Secretary of State
said about anti-competitive actions and how the OFT
might be looking at local markets in the future. Could it
not look for evidence simply by going to a price comparison
website, where straightaway it would be able to see
prices and demonstrate such behaviour historically?
Furthermore, does he recognise the concern about such
European Commission investigations, which can limp
on for decades?
Mr Davey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports
the fact that the European Commission is investigating
the market. It is important that it gets our full support.
On the OFT and its finding of possible problems in
local markets, I am sure that the OFT does exactly what
he says, but it might well need more information to
prove manipulation. Again, I call on hon. Members and
members of the public to provide such information, if
they have it, to the competition authorities.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Last year, Labour called
for commodities such as oil to come under the Financial
Conduct Authority’s regulatory net, but Ministers refused
to act. Not only are people in rural areas hit by high fuel
prices, but many of them rely on oil for heating. What
assurances can the Secretary of State give them that he
will now strengthen the OFT and the FCA by giving
them the power to deal with commodity price rigging?
Mr Davey: We certainly are strengthening the competition
authorities in this country, as I explained earlier. We are
looking at a range of issues that have come to light as a
result of the LIBOR scandal, the allegations of gas
market manipulation and so on. As I explained to the
hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark
Lazarowicz), we are working not just nationally, but at
a European level and globally to ensure that these
commodity markets are fair and not being manipulated.
Our record on this stands in stark contrast to the
inaction of the last Government.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): People in the north-east
welcome the three-year fuel duty freeze, but we have
concerns that the OFT, despite having had repeated
evidence, particularly in rural Northumberland, of a
lack of competition, has still failed to act. Does the
Secretary of State agree that a way forward would be to
summon the OFT to the House so that all MPs can
make representations in his presence and get some
action from it? No one has any faith in the OFT.
Mr Davey: I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend
does not have faith in the independent competition
authorities. According to the empirical evidence of how
they compare to other competition authorities around
the world, they actually score extremely highly. Nevertheless,
even though I saw those findings when I was competition
Minister, I wanted to strengthen them still further,
because there is no room for complacency. I hope he
realises that the Government will ensure that the
competition authorities have the powers they need.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): My constituents are
now paying more for petrol and diesel at the pumps not
least thanks to the VAT increase of 2.5p on every litre
which the Secretary of State and his Government
introduced. He boasted in his statement that he was
going to give Ofgem extra powers and responsibilities.
In light of these allegations, will he seriously consider
giving the OFT similar powers and extending its remit,
so that we can prevent this from happening again in this
country, instead of relying on the European Commission?
Mr Davey: Some of the information and allegations
of market manipulation are cross-border, so it might
well turn out that these allegations required a European
competition authority. It is important that we have a
strong European competition regulator, and I hope the
hon. Gentleman would accept that, but of course we
keep under review the powers of the regulators and
competition authorities in general. The Government
have acted strongly to strengthen them.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Businesses that we
have long known to be profiteers now stand suspected
of being racketeers. While the allegation of price
manipulation and derivatives distortion might take some
time to investigate, does the Secretary of State accept
that the wider question of commodity price indices
speculation needs to be addressed at the G8, particularly
in order to limit the degree to which financial institutions
can pass off such speculation as legitimate areas of
investment?

653 Petrol Prices
15 MAY 2013
654
Mr Davey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s main
point: there are concerns that these price benchmarks
have been manipulated, and some of the evidence suggests,
if they prove true, that they have been manipulated for
many years. I am proud that the Government are taking
action. We cannot be complacent. Too many consumers
and businesses could be hit if these sorts of allegations
prove true. We have to wait for the investigations to be
completed, but if any company is found to have breached
the rules, the full force of the law will be used.
Speaker’s Statement
1.26 pm
Mr Speaker: I have received a report from the Tellers
in the Aye Lobby for the Division at 6.59 pm yesterday,
Tuesday 14 May. The hon. Members for Lewisham East
(Heidi Alexander) and for Poole (Robert Syms) have
informed me that the number of those voting Aye was
erroneously reported as 254, instead of 244. I will direct
the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly.
The Ayes were 244 and the Noes were 316.
I have another matter I must draw to the attention of
the House before we move on to the main business
of the day. Owing to human error, a motion in the name
of the Leader of the House to refer item 33 on today’s future
business part B to a Delegated Legislation Committee
was omitted from today’s Order Paper. A corrigendum
paper has been issued and is available in the Vote Office.
The motion may be moved today as the last item before
the Adjournment debate.
Members might also wish to be reminded that the
book for entering the private Members’ Bill ballot is
open for Members to sign in the No Lobby. It will be
open until the House rises today, except during Divisions.
I also remind Members that nominations for the
Chair of the Backbench Business Committee must be
submitted to the Table Office by 5 pm today.

655 15 MAY 2013 Debate on the Address
656
Debate on the Address
[6TH DAY]
Debate resumed (Order, 14 May).
Question again proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as
follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in
Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to
Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has
addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Economic Growth
Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected
amendment (g) in the name of the Leader of the
Opposition. I have also selected amendment (b) in
the name of Mr John Baron and amendment (e) in the
name of Mr Elfyn Llwyd for separate Divisions at the
end of the debate. Those amendments may therefore be
debated together with the Leader of the Opposition’s
amendment. The amendments will be put in the order:
(g), (b) and (e).
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew
Lansley): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the
benefit of the House, may I ask you to set out your
application of the terms of Standing Order No. 33,
relating to the number of amendments to the Queen’s
Speech motion that are selectable?
Mr Speaker: Yes,Iamveryhappytodoso,andIam
grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of
order. I believe that there is a need to interpret the
Standing Orders in a way that facilitates the business of
the House in a developing parliamentary context.
Conditions and expectations today are very different
from those in October 1979, when that Standing Order
was made. I must tell the House that I have studied the
wording of Standing Order No. 33 very carefully. My
interpretation is that the words “a further amendment”
in the fifth line of the Standing Order may be read as
applying to more than one amendment successively. In
other words, only one amendment selected by me is
being moved at any time. Once that amendment is
disposed of, a further amendment may then be called. I
am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—almost
as grateful, I suspect, as he is to me.
1.30 pm
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op): I beg
to move amendment (g), at end add:
‘but regret that the Gracious Speech has no answer to a flatlining
economy, the rising cost of living and a deficit reduction plan that
has stalled, nor does it address the long-term economic challenges
Britain faces; believe that the priority for the Government now
should be growth and jobs and that we need reform of the
European Union, not four years of economic uncertainty which
legislating now for an in/out referendum in 2017 would create;
call on your Government to take action now to kickstart the
economy, help families with the rising cost of living, and make
long-term economic reforms for the future; and call on your
Government to implement the five point plan for jobs and growth,
including bringing forward long-term infrastructure investment,
building 100,000 affordable homes and introducing a compulsory
jobs guarantee for the long-term unemployed in order to create
jobs and help to get the benefits bill and deficit down, legislate
now for a decarbonisation target for 2030 in order to give business
the certainty it needs to invest, implement the recommendations
of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and
establish a proper British Investment Bank.’.
Thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. It is certainly
in line with my understanding of the particular
interpretation of that Standing Order, and I hope that it
satisfies the Leader of the House as well.
It is an honour to open the final debate on the
Queen’s Speech today, and to move the amendment,
which you have selected on behalf of Her Majesty’s
Opposition. It is a Labour amendment that calls for
decisive action and a stimulus now to kick-start the
recovery, boost living standards and get the deficit
down, including 100,000 affordable homes, urgent action
to accelerate infrastructure investment and reforms to
get young people and the long-term unemployed back
to work, with a compulsory jobs guarantee.
The amendment also proposes radical long-term reforms
to promote economic growth and investment in
manufacturing, services and our creative industries by
implementing the recommendations of the Parliamentary
Commission on Banking Standards, legislating now for
a 2030 decarbonisation target to give businesses the
certainty they need to invest here in Britain and setting
up a proper British investment bank. It is a one nation
Labour amendment, which stands in marked contrast
to the complete and utter shambles we have seen from
the Government over the past seven days since the
Gracious Address—a divided coalition, out of ideas
and running out of road, and a weak Prime Minister,
out of touch and fast losing control of his party and his
own Cabinet.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): How much
more money would the shadow Chancellor need to
borrow to deliver on his alternative Queen’s Speech?
Ed Balls: As I said in my opening remarks and as our
amendment says, we need a stimulus now. We, the
International Monetary Fund, the Business Secretary
and The Economist all agree that taking action now to
kick-start our recovery is the right thing to do. We
should borrow now to get growth moving, so that we
get our deficit down.
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that very
question was asked of the Business Secretary on the
“Today” programme just a few weeks ago. He was asked
by John Humphries, “So, should you borrow more?”
Guess what the Business Secretary said? He said:
“Well we are already borrowing more”.
That is the truth—£245 billion more. I will tell you what
I want to do—[Interruption.] I will answer the hon.
Gentleman’s question. I want to get the borrowing
down. Under this Chancellor, the borrowing has flatlined—
the same last year, this year and the year after. That is
the reality.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): Will the right hon.
Gentleman come clean with the House: how much
more would he borrow?
Ed Balls: As I said, I want to see the borrowing
coming down, and it is not coming down because this
Chancellor has flatlined the economy. We have had
almost no growth since 2010 and the result is that he is
borrowing £245 billion more.

657 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
658
I have made speeches in the last two Queen’s Speech
debates: I have said that there should be a temporary
VAT cut, which would cost £12 billion. I have called for
a national insurance cut, VAT at 5% and for infrastructure
investment to be brought forward. If those things had
been done, borrowing would be coming down now;
under this Chancellor, it is not. The economy has flatlined
and the deficit reduction plan has flatlined as well.
With the IMF here in town, what the Government
should do is listen to the IMF chief economist, who
says they are “playing with fire”. The IMF has said they
should slow the pace of deficit reduction, stimulate the
economy and get growth moving to get the deficit
down. That is what the Government should do.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): Is that the
“borrow, borrow, borrow” advice that the shadow
Chancellor gave to the President of France, whose
deficit is well above the EU average and whose economy
has shrunk by 0.2%? Is that the kind of advice he is
giving to his fraternal friend?
Ed Balls: The EU produced the latest growth figures
today. The figures for France are disappointing. France
has gone into recession. It is in the eurozone, trapped in
austerity, and its economy is not growing. I looked at
the figures today to see what French growth had been
since the Chancellor’s spending review compared with
the UK. Since the spending review in 2010, growth in
France has been 1.1% and growth in the UK has been
1.1% as well, compared with Germany, which has had
three times more growth, and America, which has had
four times more growth. The eurozone is locked into
austerity by virtue of those countries’ membership of
the single currency. Our Chancellor imposed on our
economy austerity that went too far, too fast, and what
has happened? He has delivered the same growth
performance over the last two years as that of the
French economy, well behind that of Germany and
America, where, as we now know, the deficit is coming
down.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): With the IMF in
town, will the shadow Chancellor confirm that the IMF
has forecast that the UK will be growing faster than
France over the next two years?
Ed Balls: The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating
me and the Labour Government on not taking us into
the single currency in 2003. That is what he should be
doing, but if he wants to have a debate about the IMF,
this is what the IMF said in September 2011:
“If activity were to undershoot current expectations, countries
that face historically low yields”—
such as Germany and the United Kingdom—
“should also consider delaying some of their planned adjustment”.
In April—just a month ago—it said:
“In the UK, where recovery is weak owing to lacklustre
demand, consideration should be given to greater near-term
flexibility in the fiscal adjustment path.”
That is technical language that means the Chancellor
should slow the pace of deficit reduction, provide a
stimulus and get the economy moving to get the deficit
down. What do we hear from the Treasury? Treasury
advisers, who a year ago were saying the IMF was on
their side, now say that the Chancellor will ignore the
IMF and plough on regardless with a failing plan.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): I am glad to see
that the shadow Chancellor is beginning to agree with
our plans for regional banking reform with local banks.
However, he would improve his banking credibility if he
were to repay the £3 million owed by the Labour party
to the Co-operative bank. Does he agree with that?
Ed Balls: Ihavetosay—
Nadhim Zahawi: Youhavetoanswerit!
Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Zahawi, you have already
intervened with some gusto, but I would ask you to
behave in a seemly manner, as the people of Stratfordon-Avon
would expect and are themselves wont to do.
Ed Balls: The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy
Opperman) has made some wise interventions in these
debates. He said just last year that
“too often we are talking about the 50p tax, a tax which affects
those on six times the average salary, rather than the taxes on the
lowest paid.”
It is a pity his Front-Bench team did not listen to his
views in this year’s Budget.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Balls: I want to make some progress, then I will
take some more interventions.
This is not simply the Queen’s Speech of a coalition
Government who have ground to a halt; it is much
worse than that. At a time when living standards are
falling; when child poverty is rising; when more than
950,000 young people are out of work; when, as we
learned today, unemployment is rising again and is now
higher than at the general election; when, as we also
learned today, prices are rising four times faster than
wages in our economy; when our economy has flatlined
for three years; when overall business investment has
stalled and actually fallen in the past two years; when,
as a result, our triple A credit rating has been downgraded;
when the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the
deficit reduction plan has completely stalled; and when
the International Monetary Fund is now in town saying
that the Chancellor is “playing with fire” by sticking to
his failing plan, you would think that the priority for
the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Cabinet and the
Conservative party would be to see what they could do
to boost economic growth and long-term investment in
our country. But no, it seems that that is not their
priority.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con):
We have already had a credit downgrade from one of
the agencies, and the agency made it clear that that was
a result of the problems that our economy has had in
recovering. Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned
that if we were to abandon our plans, there could be a
further downgrade? If we simply did as he suggests and
opened the floodgates to more debt and borrowing, we
would put our economy into severe crisis as a result of
rising interest rates and a lack of credibility in international
markets.
Ed Balls: I ask the hon. Lady to reflect for a moment
on the logic of her position. For the past three years, she
and the Chancellor have consistently said that they had
to stick to the plan, even though growth was low, even

659 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
660
[Ed Balls]
though the deficit was not coming down and even
though living standards were under pressure, because
otherwise they would lose the triple A credit rating.
Now, they have lost the triple A rating, but they still
maintain that they have to stick to the plan. That is
completely illogical. The credit rating agency said in
terms that it had downgraded us because there was no
growth in the economy, and that that was choking off
deficit reduction. Sticking with a failing plan that is not
working and that has resulted in the deficit reduction
being stalled is not the way to keep our credit rating—if
that is the Government’s objective. The way to keep it is
to get the economy moving, get people investing and get
people back into long-term sustainable jobs. Until we
do that, the Chancellor is going to continue to fail.
Andrea Leadsom rose—
Ed Balls: If the hon. Lady would like to have another
go, I am happy to give way to her.
Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the right hon.
Gentleman for letting me have another go. I put it to
him that he really does not understand the point about
the credit rating agency in this context. The whole point
about confidence in the British economy is that people
need confidence in Britain’s ability to get out of the
economic mess that his Government left us in. This is
not about the absolute level; it is about market confidence.
He must surely understand that keeping a very good
credit rating is essential in order to have an affordable
cost of borrowing.
Ed Balls: I do not want to prolong this argument, but
I must explain to the hon. Lady the term structure of
interest rates. The 10-year bond yields are the accumulation
of market expectations of three-month interest rates
added up every three months over 10 years. Why are our
long-term interest rates so low? It is because people
think that short-term rates are going to stay low because
the economy is flat on its back. People would have to be
economically illiterate to think that our long-term interest
rates were driven by market confidence at a time when
we are being downgraded by the agencies. Our long-term
interest rates are low because our economy is not growing.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con) rose—
Ed Balls: I was hoping to debate the Europe issue
with the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I am happy
to give way to him on this one as well.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I look forward to debating many
issues with the right hon. Gentleman. The markets
show confidence in this Government’s policy by keeping
interest rates low. This is not purely to do with an
expectation of where short-term rates will be; it is about
confidence in the creditworthiness of the British
Government under this Chancellor.
Ed Balls: I have to say that that is a deluded view of
the way in which credit ratings work. Let us not forget
that in 2007 these same credit rating agencies were
saying, “Stick with Lehman Brothers”and giving America
a triple A rating despite all the sub-prime lending. That
is the reality. The fact is that the credit rating agencies
are downgrading Britain because our economy is not
growing. That is the fundamental problem.
I will give the hon. Gentleman a bit of ground,
however. It is true that the Labour Government left a
longer-term interest rate structure than other economies.
We had far less foreign currency borrowing and more
index-linked borrowing than other countries. That helped,
but the fundamental thing was that we did not join the
single currency. In Spain, Italy and elsewhere, we see a
currency risk premium, which relates to the central
bank’s ability and willingness to stand behind sovereign
debt. That is not an issue here. Our interest rates are
low, and they have fallen because our economy is not
growing. The market is therefore reflecting expectations
of continuing stagnation. I am afraid that that is the
reality—aside from the political rhetoric of the Chancellor.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: In my previous intervention, I was
careful to talk about the markets, not the credit rating
agencies. It is the markets that count, because they
reflect people investing their money. I agree with the
right hon. Gentleman that the credit rating agencies got
the whole of the pre-crash period wrong, but it is the
markets we need to bank on.
Ed Balls: Unlike the Chancellor, the markets do not
pay a huge amount of respect to the credit rating
agencies. The hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that.
That is why, two or three years ago, it was so ridiculous
for the Chancellor to say, “Trust me. I’ll keep us as a
safe haven because I’ll keep the triple A credit rating.”
We told him, in 2011 and 2012, that the plan was not
working, that the economy was not growing and that
the deficit was not coming down, but when we told him
to change course, he said, “I can’t do that because the
credit rating agencies will downgrade us.” Well, they
downgraded us anyway, because the economy was not
growing.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): The
shadow Chancellor believes in plain speaking, so I want
to give him a third—and perhaps final—opportunity to
tell us the amount of extra borrowing that his policies
would require. Just a number—plain and simple.
Ed Balls: I am not going to write our Budget for 2015
two years ahead. That would be the wrong thing to do.
Right now, if the Chancellor had done what I recommended
a year ago, borrowing would be coming down. At the
moment, however, it is absolutely flat.
What have we learnt in the last seven days? What have
we learnt from today’s Tory amendment about the
priority of the Conservative party? What are Conservative
Members demanding in their amendment? What are
they rebelling on? Accelerated bank reform? Energy
market reform? Housing investment? Infrastructure
investment? Tough welfare reform through a compulsory
jobs guarantee? If they want all that, they can vote for
our amendment today. But no, according to the Tory
amendment, the No. 1 priority that is so vital that
Conservative Members are planning to vote against
their own Government’s Queen’s Speech involves enabling
legislation to allow Eurosceptic Conservative MPs to
try to take Britain out of the European Union.

661 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
662
The Tory amendment states that those Members
“regret that an EU referendum bill was not included in the
Gracious Speech.”
Let me tell the House what they should be regretting.
They should regret the fact that, after three years of
pursuing a failing economic plan, the Chancellor is still
ploughing on regardless, even when the IMF is telling
him to change course. They should regret the fact that,
when calculations based on Institute for Fiscal Studies
figures show that families are, on average, £891 worse off
this year, the Government have cut taxes for the highest
earners, giving a £100,000 tax cut to 13,000 millionaires.
They should regret the fact that the Government have
refused to use the Queen’s Speech to put in place the
long-term reforms necessary for our economic future—
reforms that I fear will not be in the spending review,
either. The Chancellor and the House should regret,
too, the fact that the Conservative party seems to have
been hijacked by those within its ranks, including within
the Cabinet, who are determined to lead Britain out of
the EU regardless of the impact on investment and jobs.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Will the shadow
Chancellor confirm that the number of Labour Members
who have signed this Tory amendment on the EU
referendum is now in double figures?
Ed Balls: I have not seen the figures, but I would be
happy to study them—it is when it spreads to the
Cabinet that there is a real problem. The hon. Gentleman
should regret the 15% rise in long-term youth
unemployment in his constituency, which was confirmed
today. I have to say that this coalition was really not
worth his support.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): The shadow
Chancellor is generous in giving way. It is a shame he is
not the leader of his party, because if he was he would
make sure it was not the anti-referendum party—I
think those were his very words. The message from
today’s debate and tonight’s vote will be that Labour is
against an EU referendum and the Conservatives are in
favour of it. To put the facts straight, it is not just
Conservative Members or just Labour and Democratic
Unionist Members who signed the amendment—a Liberal
Democrat Member signed it, too.
Ed Balls: I will read our amendment to the hon.
Gentleman so that he knows exactly what we will vote
for. We say
“that the priority for the Government now should be growth and
jobs and that we need reform of the European Union, not four
years of economic uncertainty which legislating now for an in/out
referendum in 2017 would create”.
Let me quote to the hon. Gentleman the press release
issued this morning by the Engineering Employers
Federation, which knows about manufacturing investment
in the long term. It says:
“EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation believes the current
debate is ‘letting British business down’ with politicians making
claims that the EU isn’t working for Britain rather than focussing
on how to work to make it better”.
Let me set out further our position on this reform
agenda, which has been set out in recent weeks and
months by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow
Foreign Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and me.
Instead of four years of uncertainty, our Labour
amendment says that the priority now should not be
walking out of meetings or being entirely ignored but
arguing with influence to get the reforms agreed. These
include reform of the common agricultural policy, tough
new budget discipline in the European budget with
stronger independent audit—[Interruption.] Conservative
Members should listen, as I would have thought they
agreed with many of these things. The priorities include
reform of family-related payments to EU migrants,
greater national flexibility in transitional arrangements,
a balanced growth plan and a new growth commissioner,
an end to the wasteful Strasbourg Parliament and more
powers for national Parliaments.
Let us reflect for a moment on what the president of
the CBI said just a few weeks ago:
“UK membership of the EU encourages large company capital
investments within the UK, creating jobs and wealth that trickle
down to medium and small company suppliers”—
the kind of trickle down we quite like. He continued:
“Departure would be bad for employment and growth across a
broad business spectrum.”
This is what Sir Richard Branson wrote in January:
“An exit would be very bad for British business and the
economy as a whole...The EU is the UK’s biggest trading partner,
its combined market dwarfs the US and China. For that reason
alone the UK must stay in to help rebuild the EU.”
He was right.
Let this sink in: Conservative Back Benchers, with
the blessing of many Conservative Front Benchers, are
proposing today an amendment that aims to break our
ties with our main trading partner, blight inward investment
into the UK and put at risk upwards of 3 million jobs.
Let it sink in, too, that the leader of the Conservative
party, the Prime Minister of our country is not just too
weak to do anything about it—he is caving in, day by
day, to their demands.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I
agree with the shadow Chancellor almost entirely on
Europe, but will he pledge today that he will not support
an in/out referendum that might take the UK out of
Europe?
Ed Balls: I want us to stay in the European Union; I
am absolutely clear about that. Our amendment is
absolutely clear, too, about the effect of an in/out
referendum announced now. I am going to quote someone,
which might go down well with the hon. Gentleman but
perhaps not so well with some Conservative Members.
Lord Heseltine said:
“To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn’t
begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that’s
unknown, where Britain’s appeal as an inward investment market
would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary
gamble”.
My answer to the question of the hon. Member for
Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is that we
will not take that unnecessary gamble now. It would be
the wrong thing to do. This is exactly the same position
as the one the Prime Minister and the Chancellor joined
us in the Lobby to vote against in October 2011. How
things change!

663 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
664
[Ed Balls]
Let us remind ourselves of what the Prime Minister
told the Conservative party conference in 2006; it is
worth reading the whole quote so we can understand its
full impact:
“For too long, we were having a different conversation. Instead
of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked
about what we cared about most. While parents worried about
childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family
life—we were banging on about Europe.”
His party has certainly been banging on about Europe
day after day over the last week—banging the nails in
the coffin of Tory modernisation and in the coffin of
this Prime Minister’s prime ministership, too.
We should not forget that this is the Prime Minister
who last summer rejected calls for an in/out referendum.
Then, just three months ago in his much-heralded Europe
speech, the Prime Minister pulled his referendum stunt—a
Europe speech to wrong-foot Labour and UKIP and
unite the Conservative party. This is how The Independent
reported Downing street’s gleeful boasting back in January.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): Will
the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ed Balls: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what The
Independent said about Downing street; then we can
reflect on it together in a few moments. It said:
“They judged that, to calm the fractious Tory pack, they had
to split off the hardliners who want to leave the EU from
pragmatic Eurosceptics...They also needed to unite the Tories at
the next election and reduce the threat from the UK Independence
Party...The best way, they calculated, would be to promise an
‘in/out’ referendum after 2015. The trick seems to have worked”,
the article concluded,
“at least in the short term.”
Downing street claimed the speech took six months
to formulate; it has taken just three months to unravel.
We have seen Tory Back Benchers last week defying the
Prime Minister to vote against the Queen’s Speech;
former Tory Chancellors openly calling for Britain to
leave the European Union; serving Cabinet Ministers
joining the chorus at the weekend, saying they would
vote for Britain to leave the EU now; and the embarrassing
spectacle and truly ludicrous sight of a British Prime
Minister in Washington negotiating an EU-US trade
deal, while back home members of his own Cabinet say
they would vote to exclude Britain from its benefits.
Then, on Monday night, we heard the Prime Minister’s
panic announcement that he would, after all, publish a
draft referendum Bill—not as Prime Minister, but as
leader of the Tory party—only to be told by his own
Back Benchers the next morning that it was not good
enough because the public did not trust him, and they
did not trust him either. This is really what it means for
a Prime Minister to be “in office, but not in power”. It is
not John Major all over again; it is much worse than
that, because at least he tried to stand up to the Eurosceptics
in his Cabinet.
Mr Baron: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman
fundamentally misrepresents the amendment. Members
in all parts of the House believe that the time has come
to give the British people their say on our relationship
with the European Union. May I put this question to
the right hon. Gentleman? Why does he not trust the
British people on the issue?
Ed Balls: I will take a second intervention from the
hon. Gentleman if he will tell me how he would vote in
the referendum.
Mr Baron: No, no, no—[Interruption.] All right, I
will answer. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Baron: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s
question most directly, provided he promises to answer
my question most directly. My answer to his question is
that if the referendum were held tomorrow, I would
vote “out”, but I support the Prime Minister in his idea
of holding a referendum in 2017. If he can successfully
renegotiate and re-engineer an EU based on trade and
not on politics, that will be a different kettle of fish, and
we will judge it at the time.
May I now return to my question to the right hon.
Gentleman? He has ducked it, and that is what gives
politicians a bad name outside this place. Why will he
not give the electorate their say on this issue?
Ed Balls: For precisely the reason that I gave in an
earlier answer—and I have to say that I am not sure that
the public like to hear us repeating ourselves.
Let me quote the words of another business organisation,
London First. [HON.MEMBERS: “Answer the question!”]
I will answer the question. London First—[Interruption.]
London First—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order.
We have a long afternoon ahead of us. It would be good
to hear everyone’s views on this subject, which means
not shouting over speakers.
Ed Balls: No wonder the Prime Minister has gone to
America, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is what he
has put up with.
Let me quote the words of London First—
[Interruption]—which is my answer.
“The announcement that a referendum on our membership of
the EU may be held in a few years’ time, dependent on the result
of the next General Election, risks condemning the UK economy
to several years of further uncertainty.”
London First is completely right. We can see why the
Prime Minister is so worried. If that is the kind of
support he has, no wonder he is in trouble.
Mr Baron: We have just had an exchange in the
Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, in which I directly
answered a question in return for the Chancellor’s directly
answering mine. [HON.MEMBERS: “Shadow Chancellor.”]
I mean the shadow Chancellor. He has refused to
answer my question. Let me ask it one more time. Why
is he denying the British public their say on Europe?
Ed Balls: I am the shadow Chancellor, not the
Chancellor—at least for now.
I have answered the question, but I will answer it
again. We do not believe that a referendum now is the
right priority. The hon. Gentleman asked me why, and I

665 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
666
have answered the question. I have answered the question
because, actually, I agree with him. This is what he said
last year:
“Austerity can only do so much. Longer term, the better
solution is greater competitiveness and economic growth.”
I think that the priority now, in the Queen’s Speech,
should be for the Government to act on economic
growth, short-term and long-term. Hanging a sign above
our door saying “For the next four years, Britain is
closed for business” would be a very, very foolish thing
to do.
Mr Baron rose—
Ed Balls: I will give way again.
Mr Baron: I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving
way. He is being gracious, if nothing else. However, he
still has not answered the question. Why will he not
support the concept of trusting the British people to
make up their minds on this, say, in 2017? Does he
support that position?
Ed Balls: I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question.
For us to join him, or the Prime Minister, in committing
ourselves now to a referendum four years ahead would
lead to lost investment and lost jobs, and would be the
wrong priority for Britain. Our amendment makes it
absolutely clear that we disagree with that strategy.
If there were a treaty change that altered the balance
of powers, we would support a referendum. I think it
important for us to listen to and understand people’s
concerns about Europe, and show that we can reform. I
must say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that we will
not get the reform that we need by walking out of the
room in a flounce, as our Prime Minister did in December
2011. That was one of the worst pieces of statesmanship
we have seen for many years.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): In
order to be a member of the European economic area
outside the European Union, would we not still have to
pay a membership fee and accept most of the rules and
regulations coming from Brussels? Would we not also
lose our seat on the Commission, lose our seats in the
European Parliament, and lose our voice on the Council
of Ministers?
Ed Balls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The problem
is that the Prime Minister no longer knows whether to
agree, disagree, or sit on the fence on that question,
which is why we are in such a mess.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con):
The right hon. Gentleman has seen the Prime Minister’s
draft Bill. If it became an Act of Parliament requiring a
future Government to move an order to set a date for a
referendum before 2017, would he do so?
Ed Balls: I have just explained that we do not support
the idea of legislating now for a referendum four years
ahead, for precisely the reasons that the Engineering
Employers Federation, London First and Lord Heseltine
have set out and I have set out in our amendment, as
have my colleagues. I think that it would destabilise
investment and jobs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Balls: Normally there are plenty of interventions
in debates on the economy, jobs and growth, but it
seems to be Europe that really gets them going. I give
way to the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire
(Andrew Selous).
Andrew Selous: The shadow Chancellor is being very
generous in giving way. Will he explain very briefly what
he meant when he said hat he did not want his party to
be caricatured as the anti-referendum party?
Ed Balls: We are not against the idea of referendums.
We proposed the first referendum, in the 1970s. If there
were a change in the balance of power in the treaties, we
would support a referendum, but it would be wrong to
do so now.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Will the
right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ed Balls: I will take one more intervention.
Geraint Davies: As my right hon. Friend knows,
today’s figures show that unemployment has risen again.
He also knows that the EU provides 50% of our trade.
In the event of our securing a free trade agreement
between the EU and the United States, alongside bilateral
trading agreements between the EU and other countries
such as China, what does he think the impact of withdrawal
from the EU would be on growth, jobs and trade?
Ed Balls: In 1983, our party supported the idea of
withdrawal from the European Community, as it was at
the time, but the Conservative party and the Confederation
of British Industry agreed that it would cost 2.5 million
jobs. Our trade share with Europe has deepened since
then, and our labour market is bigger. I think that
upwards of 3 million to 3.5 million jobs would be lost
now, because we would be turning our face away from
those big markets around the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Balls: Many other Members want to make speeches,
and I have taken rather a lot of interventions already.
Let me ask a political question that brings us back to
the economy. Why have things gone so badly wrong for
the Prime Minister and his strategy over the past three,
four, five months? I think I can help. I have discovered a
column that was written in January by the Chancellor’s
cheerleader, the former Member of Parliament, and
now Sun columnist, Louise Mensch. Straight after the
Prime Minister’s Europe speech, she wrote that
“the sound we just heard was Cameron shooting Farage’s fox...This
speech saw the George Osborne/Michael Gove wing of government
triumphing over the Nick Clegg one...Canny Tories will take this
and run with it...George Osborne is a tactical genius.”
There we have it, from a former MP whose one political
achievement was to make Corby Labour again. There it
is, completely exposed: the Prime Minister is the front
man, but the tactical genius—the brains behind the
Europe strategy—is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We all remember when the Prime Minister said that
his Europe speech represented

667 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
668
[Ed Balls]
“a tantric approach to policy-making.”
I have to say that from this side of the House it looks
more like sado-masochism—and we all know that the
Chancellor likes a bit of that. “’If it’s not hurting, it’s
not working” has been his motto for a long time.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab): Will my right
hon. Friend give way?
Ed Balls: Not now.
I have checked this, and, sadly, it is true. A rather
more serious Conservative commentator, Mr Paul
Goodman of ConservativeHome, confirmed on his blog
back in May of last year that the Chancellor was,
indeed, the brains behind the Prime Minister’s referendum
stunt. That casts further doubt on the judgment of the
Prime Minister. Surely by now he has worked it out.
After all, his Back Benchers and the country have
worked it out. This is the Chancellor who claimed
bringing back Andy Coulson would be a strategic triumph.
He is the one who said taking child benefit away from
middle-income families would be a masterstroke. He is
the one who said that gambling his credibility on our
triple A rating was sound economics, and that cutting
tax credits and labelling as scroungers 3 million working
families—an average of 6,000 in every Tory constituency—
was somehow good politics, and that cutting taxes for
millionaires would wrong-foot Labour. Surely even the
Prime Minister has worked it out by now. This is the
man who last year gave us “Omnishambles 1” and “The
Budget debacle” and who has now given us “Queen’s
Speech 2”, “Omnishambles 2” and the European debacle
as well. The fact is the economic plan has failed, the
deficit plan has failed and the European plan is failing
as well, and when this Government finally collapse in
chaos, it will be this Chancellor who gets the blame.
2.11 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne):
That was certainly an odd speech from the shadow
Chancellor. He called me a tactical genius, but those on
his side are going around calling him a busted flush,
and after the extraordinary 40 minutes of comments we
have just heard from him, we can see why. The contrast
is with a Government who are building an economy
where those who want to work hard and get on are
rewarded. The contrast is with a tax system that is being
changed to support effort, with the largest ever increase
in the personal allowance. The contrast is with a welfare
system that is being changed so it always pays to work
and benefit bills are being capped so no family gets
more from being on benefits and out of work than the
average family gets from being in work.
In this Queen’s Speech we have measures to help
those who want to set up a small business and employ
people through our employment allowance—which was
not mentioned by the shadow Chancellor, but I assume
the Labour party will not vote against it. We have
measures to help families who dream of home ownership
and to help them with their mortgage costs. We have
measures for savers, with a Pensions Bill that will provide
a generous single-tier pension, and we have measures to
help those who want to stay in their homes and avoid
the lottery of care costs, with our Care Bill. The only
reason we can do all these things is because we are
clearing up the mess and the things that went so badly
wrong in our economy.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): On the issue of fairness,
the 13,000 people who earn more than £1 million a year
share a combined income of £27.4 billion, and they are
going to share in a £1.2 billion payout. How can that be
justified and fair?
Mr Osborne: In every single year under this Government
the rich will pay more in tax than in any single year of
the Labour Government that the hon. Gentleman
consistently supported, and the top rate of tax will be
higher than in any single year of the Labour Government
he supported. We put up capital gains tax so we avoided
the scandal that they presided over—indeed, that the
shadow Chancellor presided over—of cleaners paying
higher rates of tax than the hedge fund managers they
work for. That is what we have done to ensure fairness
in our tax system, and that is what we are going to
continue to do.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): The Chancellor
said those who work hard will be rewarded. Can he
explain why wages are falling, household budgets are
falling and the cost of living is going up? How is that
fair?
Mr Osborne: Let us look at what the Governor of the
Bank of England said in his press conference this
morning:
“there is a welcome change in the economic outlook…But this is
no time to be complacent—we must press on to ensure a recovery”.
Yes, there was also the disappointing news that
unemployment had gone up, but we also saw that the
claimant count and youth unemployment had come
down, and the monthly unemployment data were a lot
more encouraging than the three-month survey. That is
the reality of the current data.
Geraint Davies: Does the Chancellor agree that the
key problem is that the debt:GDP ratio will rise from
55% in 2010 to 85% by 2015? The answer to that
problem is not just to cut the debt, but to increase GDP.
Under Labour, GDP went up by 40% between 1997 and
2008, and the Chancellor inherited a growing economy
which is now flatlining because of his policies.
Mr Osborne: We inherited an 11.5% budget deficit
that was adding to our national debt every year, and
what the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor
want to do is add further to borrowing. The shadow
Chancellor was asked time and again what the cost of
the proposals in the amendment the Opposition are
asking the House to vote on tonight would be. He
would not give that figure, but I will give it for him: it is
a £28 billion amendment that would add to borrowing.
He comes up with the ludicrous argument that by
borrowing more, we can borrow less. That is why he is
making so little progress with his economic argument.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab):Will the Chancellor
at least acknowledge that when he came into office he
inherited a growing economy, and his policies have led
to it flatlining?

669 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
670
Mr Osborne: This is what I have to say about the idea
that this Government had some kind of golden economic
inheritance from the Labour party: we inherited a situation
in which Britain had had the deepest recession since the
1930s, the worst banking crisis in the entirety of British
history and the highest budget deficit in the entire
peacetime history of this nation. If that is a golden
economic inheritance, I would hate to see what the hon.
Gentleman thinks a hospital pass looks like.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned France in his
remarks. Exactly a year ago the Labour leader could
not contain his excitement about the economic programme
being unveiled in France and about the red carpet being
rolled out for him at the Elysée palace. “Chers camarades”
is how he addressed the Socialist party gathering. He
said, “What President Hollande is seeking to do in
France, I want to do in Britain.” We do not hear much
these days about Labour’s French connection. We still
have liberté and egalité, but not much fraternité—although
fraternity has never been a great topic for the Miliband
family.
What we did not hear from the shadow Chancellor
was his response to the fact that 1.2 million jobs have
been created in the private sector, and that although,
yes, our deficit is still too high, it has fallen by a third.
He says we are borrowing more. We were borrowing
£158 billion a year as a country in 2009-10, and this
year it is forecast that we will be borrowing £114 billion.
That is a £45 billion reduction in borrowing. None of
that has been easy to achieve, and every single measure
has been opposed by Labour. Not a single measure in
its amendment today would help deal with that deficit,
but our plan of monetary activism, fiscal responsibility
and supply-side reform is delivering progress.
Andrew Selous: On employment, is the Chancellor
aware that the United Kingdom’s overall employment
rate is growing at almost double that of the United
States and is rising faster than that of any other G7
country?
Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last
year, employment in the UK grew faster than in the US,
France, Germany, Japan and the eurozone as a whole.
Employment in the UK is now above its pre-recession
level. Of course we must go on taking the difficult
measures necessary to get our deficit under control, and
make sure we support businesses that want to hire
people to support the private-sector recovery. The path
being offered by the Opposition, however, would lead to
complete disaster.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): When
the Chancellor’s party was in opposition, the right hon.
and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) took
the credit, before the banks collapsed, for the economic
prosperity, claiming he had created it when he was
Chancellor. How does the current Chancellor answer
that point?
Mr Osborne: The hon. Gentleman is saying that
somehow we have a responsibility for the financial
crash or for the problems in the banking industry, but
he neatly skips the fact that not only was Labour in
office for 13 years, but the shadow Chancellor was the
City Minister. He did not have any old job in Government
—he was the City Minister when Northern Rock was
selling those 120% mortgages and the Royal Bank of
Scotland was thinking of taking over ABN AMRO. He
is the architect of the tripartite regulation, which failed
so catastrophically. He is, literally, the last person to
have any credibility on this subject.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): The shadow
Chancellor also claimed victory in keeping this country
out of the euro. Will the Chancellor remind the House
of the cost of the euro preparation unit, and when that
unit was closed down?
Mr Osborne: The euro preparation unit was shut
down by this Government in 2010, but the shadow
Chancellor does not seem to know what Labour policy
is. The Labour party is committed in principle to joining
the euro. [Interruption.] The shadow Treasury team do
not know what the monetary and currency policy of
their own party is—that is absolutely ridiculous.
Charlie Elphicke: The Government have set out a
clear and costed economic policy, which they are pursuing.
Does the Chancellor share my concern that the Opposition
cannot set out their costings, cannot say how much they
would borrow and cannot even say whether they would
back a referendum? The shadow Chancellor has been
completely unable to answer any questions put to him
in any straight way whatever.
Mr Osborne: The shadow Chancellor could not answer
the simple question of how much the amendment he is
asking us all to vote on this evening would cost. Surely
he must reflect a little and realise that each year his
appearance in these debates is a source of consolation
and comfort to the Government. He must wonder why
each year he makes the same arguments for borrowing
but there is no improvement in Labour’s economic
credibility. He does not seem to understand that the
public think that Labour spent too much, wasted their
hard-earned money and would do it all again. Does he
not feel that he owes it to the British people to apologise
for the mistakes he has made and the damage he has
inflicted on their living standards? Should he not stand
up and say, “I’m sorry, we got it wrong and we won’t do
it again”?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): The Chancellor’s
point, “You can’t borrow more to borrow less”, is a
good soundbite, but he does himself a disservice, because
some of the borrowing undertaken by this Government
has been very effective in reducing the deficit. Only
yesterday, we saw 850 new jobs in Allstate in Belfast as a
result of investment in the broadband network—that is
850 new taxpayers. Does he not accept that we can
borrow, and that by borrowing and putting the money
into the right things we can bring the deficit down?
Mr Osborne: I am all for spending money on vital
economic infrastructure, including broadband, and all
for trying to switch the budget more from current
spending to capital spending. That is precisely what we
are engaged in as part of this spending round, but we
have to take the hard decisions on where we are going to
get our revenue from or take the hard decisions on what
we will cut instead. We are making a sensible switch
towards capital spending.

671 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
672
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): Can the
Chancellor name a single occasion before the banking
problems in 2008 when he and his party argued for
tighter regulation of the City?
Mr Osborne: My party voted against the tripartite
arrangement. I do not have the quote with me today—I
will send it to the right hon. Gentleman or ensure that
my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has it for the
wind-up—but the shadow Chancellor at the time, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden
(Mr Lilley), warned in this House that taking prudential
regulation away from the Bank of England was a massive
mistake and that the Bank of England would not be
able to spot the growth of debt bubbles in the economy.
Tragically, that is precisely what happened a decade
later, and in part the responsibility lies with the people
who set up the regulatory system. Is it not extraordinary
that Labour Members get up and say that the Conservatives
said this or that, yet we are looking at the City Minister
at the time? We are looking at the person who, before
that, was the chief economic adviser who devised the
system and who used to take pleasure in telling everyone
that he turned up in Government and gave Eddie George
a letter saying that he was no longer in charge of
banking regulation—that used to be the shadow
Chancellor’s story, but he never talks about it now.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
(LD): I think the country understands that we could
not go on as we did, with a completely unregulated City,
with bonuses out of control and with unjustifiable
profits. The Government’s policy on taxation is fairer
now than it ever was under the previous Government.
May I ask the Chancellor, however, to address the
matter of the housing market, to which he partly referred?
In addition to the welcome measures in the Queen’s
Speech, will he look into how we can increase the
supply of social rented housing and deal with the fact
that many non-domiciled people are buying property in
this country, not to live in or to rent out, but to keep
empty, forcing up prices for everyone, beyond what
people can afford?
Mr Osborne: We are putting in place, right now, new
guarantees—the first time that the Treasury has done
this—for social housing associations to enable them to
build more social homes; in the Budget, we also confirmed
support for an additional 30,000 social homes, so we are
taking action to help on that front. With our Help to
Buy scheme we are also helping those who want to buy
their own home in the private market. My right hon.
Friend is absolutely right that we should do both, which
is precisely what we are doing.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): As
we learned with great interest, there was much in the
Queen’s Speech that will affect employment, skills and
manufacturing in our country. This is an important part
of our country’s future. Can the Chancellor assure me
that there is a unit in the Treasury—or a plan for the
Treasury—to carry out an independent evaluation of
how skills, jobs and manufacturing would be affected if
this country left the European Union?
Mr Osborne: I will come on to talk briefly about
reform in the European Union, but I am clear that an
unreformed European Union is also doing damage to
British competitiveness and British jobs.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): The estimated
cost of the Labour party’s plans is £28 billion. Labour
opposes every one of our spending cuts, so does that
not imply that it would fund the whole lot by pushing
this country’s borrowing back towards £150 billion? Is
that why the shadow Chancellor is so reluctant to say
what more borrowing he could commit to?
Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is right to say that that
is the approach of the shadow Chancellor. The right
hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who is sadly not in
his place, gave the shadow Chancellor some unsolicited
advice last week—I think it was unsolicited. He said:
“Labour’s Treasury team need to get out on the stump now
and work even harder. It shouldn’t just be left to Ed and Harriet”—
Miliband and Harman—
“to carry the heavy load”
on shows such as the “World at One”. We could not
agree more, because it is fair to say that when the
Labour leader appears on the radio—I am not sure how
to put this delicately—there is a little confusion about
what Labour’s economic policy might be. Ten times he
was asked whether borrowing would go up or what his
party’s policy was, and he did not reveal it. I will be fair
to the shadow Chancellor and say that he is much more
straightforward. He has a much clearer message than
his leader: “Vote Labour and borrowing will go up. Vote
Labour and welfare bills will rise.” Vote Labour and he
will do it all again. It is not just the right hon. Member
for Neath who wants to see the shadow Chancellor on
the media more—we want to see him on the media
much more.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Yesterday,
I met the chairman of Fujitsu, which has just put
£800 million into the British economy. He told me that
his company had done so only because this country is in
the European Union. He was, however, rather disappointed
not to have had a reply from the Prime Minister after
writing to him with that news. Does the Chancellor of
the Exchequer not understand that his Government
should be more interested in providing stability for
business than in pleasing their own Back Benchers?
Mr Osborne: It is very good news that Fujitsu is
choosing to employ in the United Kingdom. I do not
see the hon. Lady’s intervention as a hostile one that has
put me on the back foot; what am I supposed to do
about the fact that international companies are choosing
the United Kingdom as the place to invest and create
jobs? That is a tough one!
I have to admit that the hon. Lady has a point, but let
me come on to say something about the change that is
required, including the change in the European Union,
which of course is a subject of debate today.
It is true that for much of my political life and, I
suspect, the political life of many in the House, the
concerns about Europe have primarily been ones of
sovereignty and constitutional power—not exclusively,
but those have been the most dominant. Those concerns
have not disappeared, but they have been complemented
by economic concerns, and those economic concerns
have grown. There is concern that the European prescription
of high taxes, expensive social costs and unaffordable
welfare is slowly strangling the European economy.
There are concerns from business that directive after

673 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
674
directive, regulation after regulation load costs on European
companies, especially small firms, and cripple their
ability to compete against new challengers around the
world.
The crisis in the eurozone has created an immediate
institutional challenge for the UK: as 17 member states
attempt to take steps to save their monetary union, how
can we change the EU to protect our interests and make
it work for us? But the crisis has only accelerated an
economic argument that was coming anyway: is Britain’s
membership of the European Union right for Britain’s
economic future? My answer, like the Prime Minister’s,
is that if we can achieve real change in Europe and our
relationship with the EU, then yes, it is. That is the
renegotiation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
seeks—a Europe that is more globally competitive and
more flexible, a Europe that creates jobs and offers its
people prosperity and accountability.
Mr Bone: Is not the Chancellor exactly right? Is not
his view shared by those on the Conservative Benches? I
am sure the Chancellor is forced by coalition politics
not to be able to vote for the amendment, but if he were
free from that restraint, would he back the Prime Minister’s
policy by voting for the amendment tabled by my hon.
Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)?
Mr Osborne: This is a coalition Government with a
coalition Queen’s Speech, which contains things such as
the single-tier pension, the Care Bill and the help for
small employers, which will make a real difference to
people across the country. Our view is that the best
route to achieving what I know my hon. Friend wants
to achieve is by legislating in this House. As the Prime
Minister said in his January speech, we now have draft
legislation for an in/out referendum on the EU. We have
done it in good time for this Session’s ballot for private
Members’ Bills. It is now open to any hon. Members
who do well in that ballot to adopt the draft Bill that we
published yesterday and take it forward as the basis for
legislation. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we
will do everything we can to make it law.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab):
A moment or two ago the Chancellor said that if the
renegotiation that the Prime Minister has set out on
produced fundamental change, he would vote to stay in
the EU. What will his position be if the renegotiation
does not produce much change? That is what happened
the last time this was tried in the 1970s. Not much
change is not exactly an unlikely prospect, given the
attitude of other European member states so far to the
Government’s stance.
Mr Osborne: I do not think the Prime Minister will
fail in his negotiating effort. I do not think the Conservative
party will fail in its negotiating effort with the European
Union. Do Members know why I do not think we will
fail in that effort? The Prime Minister pulled us out of
the eurozone bail-outs when everyone said that was
impossible. The Prime Minister delivered a cut in the
European budget when everyone said that was unachievable.
The Prime Minister vetoed a bad treaty when people
said that was unprecedented. I am confident we can
achieve that new settlement.
There is another reason why I am confident we can
achieve that settlement. I see around the table in Europe—
around the ECOFIN table, where I was yesterday—
many countries as concerned as we are about the future
of jobs and investment on the European continent,
people who know that the EU is not working as currently
arranged.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: I will give way to the Scottish nationalists
in a moment.
It was not this Chancellor but the German Chancellor
who said the other day:
“If Europe today accounts for just over 7% of the world’s
population, produces around 25% of global GDP and has to
finance 50% of global social spending, then it’s obvious that it
will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of
life.”
That was the leader of Germany speaking. I believe that
there are out there other people who also seek change,
but above all, for the United Kingdom, because of the
changes happening in the eurozone, we need a new
settlement and I am confident that the Prime Minister
will deliver it.
Pete Wishart: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I
know that the UK is halfway out of the European
Union. Does he agree that the best way for the Scottish
people to remain within the European Union is to vote
yes in the referendum next year?
Mr Osborne: As our Scotland analysis papers show,
Scotland would have to apply to join the European
Union as it became a new state. I am glad the Scottish
National party is taking part in this debate on economic
policy. Perhaps we will get a clearer view from SNP
Members, after the shambles of the past three weeks, of
what their policy is on the currency that Scotland would
use, should Scotland vote to leave the Union. We have
not had a clear answer. Some members of the SNP have
said that Scotland should have its own currency, others
have said that Scotland should join the euro, and still
others have said that they would negotiate a monetary
union with all of us in order to keep the pound. There is
complete confusion in the SNP ranks and until they
have a clear answer to that, they will not be listened to
on much else.
Mr Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the
Government are committed to what one might call
a policy of negotiate and decide, although that has a
familiar ring to it? Would it not help the clarity of this
debate if the Government set out exactly what they
intend to negotiate on? That has not been clear from
anything they have so far said.
Mr Osborne: As my hon. Friend knows, and he takes
a close interest in these matters, this is the beginning of
a process of setting out what we want to achieve in a
renegotiation, and in a conversation about that. Of
course, we will then seek to achieve that renegotiation,
achieve that new settlement—I am confident that after
the election the Prime Minister and a Conservative
Government will be able to achieve that—and put it to
the British people in a referendum.

675 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
676
Charlie Elphicke: One of the things my hon. Friend
drew attention to was the problems facing our European
neighbours and the challenges posed by their welfare
states. Our action in getting on top of the problems of
welfare, reforming welfare and making sure that work
pays is key to dealing with our place in the world and
making this country competitive. I draw a distinction
between that and the attitude of the Labour party,
which has opposed every welfare reform proposed by
this Government.
Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. There was a
ludicrous remark—I do not know whether anyone noticed
it—from the shadow Chancellor when he said that
Labour supports tough welfare reform. Labour Members
have voted against every single welfare proposal put to
the House. The shadow Chancellor thinks the benefits
cap is “too low” and that it is not set at the right level at
£26,000. That is the problem. Any view of Britain, and
any view of western nations, is that they need to do
more to constrain the growth of entitlement spending
and more to make sure that welfare pays, and to spend
the money that they save on things such as infrastructure
in Northern Ireland, broadband, high-speed trains and
the Crossrail project under London—the vital economic
infrastructure that our country needs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: I will give way to Labour Members in a
moment if they can help me answer this question. What
on earth is the policy of the Labour party towards an
in/out referendum on Europe? The shadow Chancellor
was asked that again and again. The question is this: do
the Opposition rule out offering an in/out referendum
at the next general election—yes or no? What is the
answer?
Chris Williamson: Perhaps the Chancellor can answer
this question. Toyota, just down the road from my
constituency and the biggest inward investment in western
Europe, came to Derbyshire because it gave access to
the European market. Does the Chancellor think that,
if an in/out referendum was hanging over this country
and Toyota was thinking about investing now, it would
take that decision to invest in Derbyshire, or would it
take its investment somewhere else inside the EU?
Mr Osborne: A lot of those big Japanese car plants
came to Britain under a Conservative Government who
were offering them a competitive place to do business in
the world. I am pleased to say that under this coalition
Government we now export more cars than we import
for the first time since the mid-1970s, and we will go on
having a successful car industry because we have specific
policies to back the car sector, but above all because we
have cut corporation tax and made this a competitive
place in which to do business.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: I will give way to whichever Labour MP
can answer this question: do the Labour party rule out
an in/out referendum on Europe?
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op): It is six
months to the day since the voters of Corby in east
Northamptonshire delivered a damning verdict on the
Government. The key issues in that by-election were not
the preoccupations of the right wingers in the Chancellor’s
Tory party, but jobs and health care in this country. But
since the Chancellor is so keen to ask us questions, will
he answer the question that the hon. Member for Basildon
and Billericay (Mr Baron) answered very clearly, which
is: if there were an in/out referendum tomorrow, how
would the Chancellor vote?
Mr Osborne: The policy is this: change the European
Union, seek a new settlement, then put that to the
British people in a referendum. This debate has revealed
that Labour cannot answer the simple question: does it
rule out offering an in/out referendum before the next
general election? If it cannot answer that question, it
will not be listened to on this subject any more, and
people will be very, very clear that the only way to get an
in/out referendum on Europe is to have a Conservative
Government after the next election, so people should
vote Conservative in that election and make sure that
they have their say.
Nadhim Zahawi: Does the Chancellor not agree that
the double-speak we heard from the shadow Chancellor
and his reluctance to trust the British people feed the
people’s mistrust in politics?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. I
listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention
and I am sure that we are not implying any misleading
in this Chamber by any hon. Member.
Nadhim Zahawi: Double-speak is not misleading.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think it implies something.
[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman
did not argue with me, particularly if he wants to be
called in this debate. That is a very dangerous route to
take. All hon. Members would do well to moderate
their language and participation in the debate to a more
reasonable level.
Mr Osborne: Let me conclude, because I am conscious—
Ed Balls: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr Osborne: Of course I will give way.
Ed Balls rose—
Mr Osborne: Hold on. I have not given way yet. I will
give way to any Labour Member who can answer the
question: do they rule out an in/out referendum before
the next general election? Yes or no?
Ed Balls: To avoid any risk of double-speak, Madam
Deputy Speaker, in order to make sure that we have the
full facts before us, the Chancellor claimed that he was
tackling the welfare bill—[Interruption.] No, no doublespeak.
Let us be absolutely clear that between 2010-11
and 2012-13, expenditure on benefits has gone up,
because of higher unemployment, inflation and other
things, by £8.1 billion. To avoid double-speak, will the
Chancellor confirm that welfare spending is up by
£8 billion in the last two years?
Mr Osborne: We have spent more on pensions, and
we are proud that we have done so, and we have a triple
lock on pensions and pensioners last year got the biggest

677 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
678
ever increase in the state pension. As for other areas of
the welfare state, we have cut welfare entitlements by
£19 billion a year.
Let me conclude, because there is a five-minute limit
on Back-Benchers’ contributions. We have spoken about
Europe, but many of the economic challenges that we
face remain at home. We spoke about banking regulation,
and an important part of the legislative programme this
year is the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill,
which is a carry-over Bill. We are making the changes
necessary to fix our banking system, ring-fence our
retail banks and make sure that we deal with the too-bigto-fail
problem. We also have legislation to support
small businesses. It will not be the most controversial
Bill, because I suspect that the Labour party will not
dare to oppose it, but it will be of enormous help to our
constituents and to many businesses throughout the
country. Our new employment allowance will cut the
tax on jobs—
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): Not for
another year.
Mr Osborne: We have to get the legislation because
we need a national insurance Bill, which is what—
[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman had 13 years to do
something for small businesses, and the only idea he
came up with was to put up the small companies’
tax rate.
From next April, every business and every charity
will have their employer national insurance contributions
bill cut by £2,000 a year. It means that a business will be
able to employ four adults on the minimum wage without
paying any employer NICs at all. I know that the
shadow Chancellor does not want to hear it, because
his policy was to put taxes up on jobs. That is what he
fought the general election on, and that is what he still
talks about when people listen to him in his interviews.
That is the point. The Opposition offer more borrowing;
we are reducing the deficit. They want to increase the
size of government; we want it reduced. They penalise
enterprise and wealth creation; we support it. They
would put a tax on jobs; we are abolishing it. While they
would repeat all the mistakes of the past, we are engaging
in the great economic challenges of the future. We are
building an economy that will enable Britain to compete
and succeed in the world. We are building an economy
that helps people who want to work hard and get on. I
commend the Queen’s Speech to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. I
remind hon. Members that there is now a five-minute
limit on contributions from Back Benchers. I ask that
interventions are brief and relevant, and those waiting
to speak might wish to be a little conservative, or
however one might like to put it, and not make interventions
that would reduce the time available to them later in the
debate.
2.47 pm
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab): The best that
can be said about this Queen’s Speech is that it is
inadequate on the economy. A pattern is emerging in
the way the Government weigh the national interests on
the one hand against the interests of the Conservative
party on the other. From the outset, the Chancellor
claimed that we had to cut faster and deeper than
Labour had proposed, because only that level of austerity
would reduce the deficit. It was clear then that the speed
and depth of the proposed cuts were dictated by a
political goal—a massive early deficit reduction speedily
followed by economic success well before the next election.
The Chancellor was warned then that the scale and
pace of that austerity risked the fragile growth re-established
before the election, but for potential political gain he
was ready to take a huge gamble with our economy. To
that gamble he added self-inflicted wounds. He constantly
told the British people, again for political reasons, that
we were on the brink of bankruptcy, and so almost
destroyed confidence. He made a fetish of our triple A
credit rating, and then he lost it. He has hit our economy
with a double whammy—greater austerity and, as a
direct result, higher, not lower, borrowing.
There are three ways to cut the deficit: growth, taxation
and spending cuts. The Chancellor made it clear from
the beginning that he preferred spending cuts to tax
increases, though his VAT increase hit everyone. Now
he talks only about either tax or spending; he never
mentions growth, because he does not have any. Meanwhile,
other developed countries that have not followed his
lead are growing while we are not.
The Chancellor is neglecting the opportunity of green
growth. Potential first-mover advantages in green
technologies are, just, still to be had, and with them new
high-skill, high-value-added jobs, but unless the Treasury
allows more ambition, those jobs will be elsewhere, not
in this country. Meanwhile, his cuts increasingly come
at the expense of the most vulnerable, justified by the
rhetoric of scroungers and strivers. He justifies the
bedroom tax as encouraging people to downsize, but
the Government must have known that for many people
there is nowhere to downsize to, so it is just a cut. If we
cannot afford not to cut that benefit, as he alleges, we
cannot afford to cut taxes for millionaires in the same
week.
With the EU referendum omnishambles, what began
as a gamble with our economy in the interests of the
Conservative party has become the disregard of our
economic interests. The Conservative party claims to be
the party of business, but a key hate of business is
prolonged economic uncertainty. Now we are telling
inward investors, “We might leave the EU, but we’ll let
you know in four years’ time.” Japanese, American and
European inward investors all make it clear that they
are in the UK because the UK is in the EU. Millions of
jobs are at stake. A semi-detached status, such as that of
Switzerland and Norway, means being bound by EU
decisions without having a voice. The voice we have
now is continually being weakened by the continued
uncertainty about our membership and whether the
Government even support it.
It is crystal clear to everyone, in this country and
outside, that that disregard of our national interest has
nothing to do with cool calculation of how that interest
is to be served and everything to do with the interests
of the Conservative party. The Prime Minister and
the Chancellor are running scared—scared of the UK
Independence party and scared of their own Back
Benchers. As has been said already today, they are in
office but not in power.

679 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
680
2.51 pm
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): I
would like to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for
selecting the amendment standing in my name and
those of other hon. Members, and I would like to thank
those Members who have signed it for their unwavering
support. There can be no doubt that the nature of our
relationship with the EU is of fundamental importance
to this country, but the EU has changed since we first
joined, and it is still changing. “More Europe” is the
cry, and “More political and economic harmonisation”
is the shout, but that is not why we joined.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): Does it not
follow that the time for the British people to be given
their say is long overdue and that we should give them
every assurance that they should have that say?
Mr Baron: I completely agree. I think that the political
system has denied the electorate their say for far too
long and that Parliament needs to understand that.
That is why some of us on the Conservative Benches
have been campaigning for some time for a referendum
in the next Parliament. I am pleased to say that the
Prime Minister deserved credit for listening. In January
he became the first major party leader to offer the
country a referendum in 2017. But we, as a group on
these Benches, have also long argued that our commitment
must be both credible and believable. It is credible
because the referendum in 2017 has an “out” option,
but it is not yet believable.
The British electorate, quite understandably, are deeply
sceptical of any politicians making promises about
matters European, particularly EU referendums. Too
many promises have been broken in the past. They
remember Tony Blair’s broken promises about a referendum
on the EU constitution, which never materialised. They
are constantly reminded about Liberal literature promising
an in/out referendum, which never materialised, even
when they came to power. That is why we on these
Benches have also campaigned for legislation in this
Parliament for a referendum in the next, not because we
do not trust the Prime Minister, but because the electorate
do not trust politicians generally. I would argue that we
as a party are more united on this issue than we have
been for a generation. We have all signed up to the
referendum in 2017; what we disagree on is the best way
of convincing the electorate of the seriousness of our
intent.
Mr Bone: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that 2017
is the back-stop, the latest date for the in/out referendum,
and that it might in fact be earlier?
Mr Baron: It could well be earlier, but I am very
content having a referendum in the next Parliament,
because that will give time to renegotiate. However, that
option does exist.
That is why legislation is more believable than election
manifesto promises, too many of which have been broken
in the past. That is why I very much welcome the party’s
promise to support a private Member’s Bill, something
that was not on offer when I asked a week ago. I also
support the publication of the draft Bill yesterday. It
just goes to show that a week can indeed be a long time
in politics. However, the problem with a private Member’s
Bill is that it is the second best option. We all know that
a determined minority can block it by letting it run out
of time. The Bill will fail, as so many others do, on a
soggy Friday afternoon when no one notices.
That is why I urge the Prime Minister—I am pleased
to see that the Chancellor is still in his place—to support
the amendment. It provides him with a golden opportunity.
If we were to win, that would provide him with the
mandate to try to introduce legislation through the
normal channels, which would stand a far better chance
of succeeding. He should seize the moment. He could
claim, quite rightly, that the situation was not of his
making and blame me or us as a group. It would
therefore be outside the confines of the coalition agreement.
I must say to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that
the Liberals would be very hard pressed indeed to
refuse to give time, given that Parliament would have
expressed its view and that of the electorate. Let the
media then knock at the Liberals’ door to ask questions.
The argument that there is no certainty that we would
win such legislation is weak. There is no downside in
trying. We may well win. Some MPs on other Benches—
honourable and principled Members—support the concept.
Even if we fail, we will have tried. On a matter of this
importance, political transparency is paramount, and
the electorate could then take note.
As a group on these Benches, I hope that we have
helped in a small way to move the party closer to the
electorate on this issue, but it is more important than
party politics. I encourage other Members to do likewise
within their own parties. Were the amendment to pass
tonight, we as a Parliament would be opening the door
to the possibility of introducing legislation that would
stand a far better chance of succeeding. It would take a
majority to defeat that legislation, rather than the
determined minority it takes to defeat a private Member’s
Bill. I therefore urge Members across the House to
support it. I urge my own Front Benchers to support it.
I urge the doubters to put aside their doubts and
support it.
For too long the electorate have been unable to
express their opinion on the changing nature of our
relationship with the EU. The political establishment
have essentially closed ranks over the past 30 years and
denied the electorate a choice. We now have a golden
opportunity to right that wrong. We should be bold of
heart, seize the moment and do what is right by the
electorate, and indeed by the country. I therefore intend
to move the amendment.
2.58 pm
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): I will first say
a few words about employment, particularly in the light
of statistics released today, and then a few words about
Europe. The employment situation in the UK and in my
constituency is frankly depressing, and the figures released
today by the Office for National Statistics emphasise
that. Nationally, 3.8% of those aged 16 to 64 are on
jobseeker’s allowance. Today in Knowsley the number
of JSA claimants is 4,245, which equates to 6.3% of
Knowsley residents, well above the national rate. Similarly,
the JSA count for those aged 18 to 24 is 7.2%, whereas
in Knowsley it is 13.2%. In my view, therefore, there is
no room for complacency.

681 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
682
To be frank, many of the existing opportunities do
not reflect the expectations of an ambitious country.
Practices such as zero-hour contracts and the use by
many high-profile companies of unpaid internships and
agency work amount in many cases to systematic
exploitation, particularly of young people.
There is growing concern about what is often referred
to as the race to the bottom. In The Times a few days
ago, the noble Lord Sainsbury of Turville was reported
as arguing for a more progressive form of capitalism
that recognises social justice and discussing the role that
institutions could play in bringing it about. He also
rejected the neo-liberal consensus of the past several
decades.
Frances O’Grady, the recently appointed general secretary
of the TUC, has mentioned the Prime Minister’s ambitions
to erode workers’ rights. She said:
“’The Prime Minister wants to ‘repatriate’ those rights, and
not because he thinks he can improve them”,
but because he
“wants to make it easier for bad employers to undercut good
ones”.
Moreover, on the question of employment rights, Jon
Cridland, the director general of the CBI, has said that
the Prime Minister’s proposals would not be his starting
point in any negotiation. It is clear that there is an
emerging consensus that we should be discussing the
quality of employment and the opportunities for people,
rather than taking away the rights and privileges they
already enjoy.
I am a Eurosceptic compared with many on the
Labour Benches. I voted against the Maastricht treaty,
because it removed the social contract. I am in favour of
renegotiating the terms of our EU membership and
think there should be a referendum at some point. It is
not healthy for our democracy that the relationship
between the political classes and the country has eroded
to the extent that it has.
Where I part company with the Prime Minister, however,
is on the sort of Europe that he wants to renegotiate,
which is entirely different from the sort of Europe that I
want to be a part of. I believe firmly that there is a case
for renegotiation and that it should be followed by a
referendum, but I certainly do not agree with the sort of
Europe that the Prime Minister wants to bring about.
Mr Bone: The right hon. Gentleman is making a
thoughtful speech and I understand entirely his position,
but will he consider voting for amendment (b)? It does
not specify a particular Bill; it just regrets that there is
no EU referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech.
Mr Howarth: No, and the reason why I am not
prepared to do that is because the hon. Gentleman and
the amendment anticipate a different kind of renegotiation
from one that I would support. I have given serious
thought to supporting the amendment, but it is possible
on occasion to agree with the words of an amendment
while not necessarily agreeing with the sentiment behind
it. I do not want to be associated with a proposal to
renegotiate Britain’s involvement in Europe that differs
from how I would want it to be conducted. The difference
between me and the hon. Gentleman and others who
support the amendment is not necessarily over its wording,
but over the intention behind it, which I do not want to
be associated with.
I hope that in the coming years we will see a different
arrangement between Europe and the United Kingdom.
I also hope that we can improve people’s working lives
and make work pay for a lot more people, particularly
young people. I do not believe that that is the direction
that this Government want to take, and I hope that
when there is a change of Government we will be able to
make the changes that I want to see.
3.4 pm
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Successive
Governments have spoken of localism and sustainable
communities, but the reality has not matched the rhetoric
in many respects. That is particularly true with regard
to the loss of post offices and neighbourhood and
village shops, whereby Government policies over the
past 30 years have hastened their decline, rather than
helped sustain them to the overall benefit of society and
the communities that lose them.
Nowhere is Government failure more obvious than in
the closure of thousands of neighbourhood and village
public houses—the traditional English “local”—and
the rise of mega-drinking establishments with wall-to-wall
boozing and round-the-clock easy availability of alcohol,
aligned with below-cost-price special offers in supermarkets,
which has fuelled an explosion in alcohol-related incidents
in town and city centres, making many people wary of
going to them in the evenings and putting serious extra
pressure on our emergency services, including clogging
hospital accident and emergency departments.
There is also worrying evidence from health professionals
of an increase in drink-related conditions and that this
self-inflicted rise in alcohol-induced illnesses is occurring
in increasing numbers of young people. All this adds yet
further burdens on the national health service and it
also, of course, leads to devastation for the individuals
concerned and their families. It is therefore a huge
disappointment that we have not been presented with a
Bill to address the failure of the past 30 years.
Early-day motion 57 supports a campaign group—a
coalition of organisations—known as Fair Deal for
Your Local, which is calling, as its name suggests, for a
fair deal for local public houses. The group comprises
the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private
Business, the Campaign for Real Ale, Fair Pint, Licensees
Supporting Licensees, Justice for Licensees, Licensees
Unite, the Guild of Master Victuallers and the Pubs
Advisory Service. That is a worthy list of organisations
whose views both the coalition and the Opposition
should listen to.
The campaign’s emphasis is on a much-needed reform
of the tied model operated by large public owning
companies, or pubcos as they are commonly called.
Pubcos take more than is fair or sustainable from the
sales of drinks, which makes it difficult or impossible
for many licensees to make a living. This results in the
failure, on a huge scale, of pubs up and down the
country, with a closure rate of 20 or more a week and
the pubcos selling them as though they were asset-stripping
property developers rather than custodians of our nation’s
rich social heritage.
The following statement could easily be adapted as a
Bill:
“The Fair Deal for Your Local campaign believes that the way
to ensure a fair deal for pubs—and to deliver the Government’s
clear commitment—is to include in the statutory code an option

683 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
684
[Sir Bob Russell]
for tied publicans to only pay a fair, independently assessed
market rent to the pub owning company—a ‘market rent only’
option.”
It is estimated that this would bring down the cost of a
pint in pubco-owned pubs—around a third of all British
public houses—allowing many pubs to survive and
thrive. It would also lead to fairer access to public
houses for small brewers, which would boost their businesses
and increase choice at the bar. I would have thought
that the coalition welcomed such measures. It must be
stressed that all family brewers would be excluded,
because the code would apply only to companies that
own more than 500 pubs. This relates to pubco public
houses, but legislative help would also benefit other
neighbourhood public houses.
In commending the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign,
I congratulate the excellent work of my hon. Friend the
Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland),
who tabled early-day motion 57. I also remind the
House of what I have said on this subject in previous
debates. In November I said:
“We need to amend the tax levy on beer sold in our traditional
public houses. We should have a tax-neutral approach to keep the
Treasury happy and bring huge social benefits, including job
retention and creation, rather than there being the loss of jobs
that we continue to witness in the sector.
Most publicans of neighbourhood and village public houses
run responsible establishments. Their customers should be rewarded,
not financially penalised because of the irresponsible marketing
carried out by supermarkets and mega-drinking establishments.”—
[Official Report, 1 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 429.]
I returned to this theme in the Budget debate in
March, when I observed that
“there are mixed messages on alcohol tax and the coalition
Government’s desire to tackle binge drinking and improve the
health of the nation.”
I described the confusion caused by having a debate on
whether there should be minimum unit pricing alcohol
when the Chancellor was knocking 1p off the price of a
pint of beer, and added:
“We need a variable price structure to help traditional, community
and village public houses, which would fit well with the coalition
Government’s localism agenda and the last Government’s sustainable
communities legislation.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol.
560, c. 1362.]
Time prevents me from mentioning other Bills that I
would have liked to be included, such as one on building
council houses. The lack of council house building over
the past 30 years under the policies of the Tory
Governments led by Thatcher, Major and Blair has led
to a housing crisis.
Unlike some, I will loyally support the Queen’s Speech
this evening.
3.9 pm
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
(Lab): As always, I listened carefully to the Queen’s
Speech with the intention of examining how the new
measures would affect my constituents. I was also looking
for measures that would ease the strain on the families
in my constituency who are worried about unemployment
and the rising cost of living. I was sadly and expectedly
disappointed.
Before listing my concerns, I will place on the record
a couple of observations on how we got into the deep
economic difficulty that is causing desperate hardship
for many families in my constituency. The fundamental
error of this stagnant coalition Government was to
assume that they could clear the deficit in four years.
Their plan was to use the final year in office to hand
out sweeteners to the electorate, who would be so
overwhelmingly grateful that they would elect a Conservative
majority.
Dealing with the deficit is the defining issue facing
this country. However, that should never have been
conditional on or linked to the outcome of the next
election. That was a political fix that was destined to
fail. Everybody could see that it was politically too
far-fetched, except for the opportunistic Liberal Democrats
who disregarded their electoral mandate and traded
their principles for government office.
The UK economy is 9% smaller today than was
expected when this stagnant Government took over.
In 2009-10, the deficit was £159 billion. It is now
forecast to be down to £121 billion. However, the public
debt overall is rising from £795.5 billion to a predicted
£1.1 trillion.
On any reasonable analysis of our economic situation,
two significant themes scream out loud and clear. The
first is the continual anaemic economic performance
and the second is our ability to pay off the debt, which
is becoming increasingly strained as a consequence of
the first point. While those two heads travel in opposite
directions, our economy will never recover. The policies
simply have to change. It is time that this stagnant
Government chose to put the national interest first and
their party political interests second.
Ordinary hard-working people and their families are
struggling. Rents and mortgages have to be paid, as do
ever-increasing energy and water bills. Families who
spent £600 a month to cover those costs in 2005 now
spend more than £800 a month. We have record fuel
prices and record amounts of people in fuel poverty. We
have 1 million young people out of work and left
behind. Lending to businesses is continuing to fall. We
have soaring unemployment. We have a Chancellor who
has to borrow £245 billion more than he planned, who
has failed his own economic test of retaining our triple
A credit rating and who, over the course of this Parliament,
will have delivered growth of a mere 1.7%. Ordinary
working people are paying the price of this out-of-touch
Government’s economic stagnation.
Mr Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend
agree that one of the methods that the Government are
using to make ordinary people pay for their incompetence
is the bedroom tax?
Mr Clarke: My hon. Friend raises a very important
point. While we witness the introduction of the second
home subsidy, the effects of the bedroom tax are
being seen in my constituency, where an estimated 2,128
individuals will be affected, two-thirds of whom are
believed to have disabilities. Citizens Advice Scotland
has revealed that nearly 800 victims of the welfare axe
are desperately seeking its support. Welfare recipients
are an easy target, but we should not point the finger
too quickly because no job is safe in this economy.

685 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
686
To get our economy moving again, we need
investment—investment for jobs, investment for the
future and investment in the ordinary hard-working
people of our country. We have been treated to a
more-of-the-same economic plan, with no change on
anything of importance. The Government are cutting
taxes for millionaires while cutting support for our
economy. Led by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor,
this stagnant Cabinet of out-of-touch, upper-class
millionaires has run out of ideas and run out of steam,
while our country is running out of time. What a way to
run Britain.
3.15 pm
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con): As a secondary
modern schoolboy, I am always pleased to follow the
right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill
(Mr Clarke).
In the regrettable absence of a debate on foreign
affairs, I will use today’s theme to focus on the EU’s rule
in economic growth. The British economy is not an
isolated beast. It is part of a global economy and, in
particular, a European economy focused on the EU.
That European economy needs reform, but we need to
be part of it.
Global economic success is to be found in single
markets around the world. We should look at the economic
growth in Brazil, Russia, India, China and the USA.
What do those countries have in common? They are all
single markets. The EU single market, an invention of
Margaret Thatcher, which stretches from Athens to
Oslo, is the largest single market in the world. We in the
UK are 60 million in a world of more than 7 billion—less
than 1%. Do we want to face the global markets alone
or as a member of a trading bloc that represents 500 million
people?
What is the alternative? Perhaps we could be outside
the EU, negotiating our own terms of trade. Perhaps we
could be an independent sovereign state, calling the
shots on our own terms like Norway and Switzerland.
Those propositions may sound attractive, but I disagree
with the Secretary of State for Education, who says that
life outside the EU would be “perfectly tolerable”.
Norway and Switzerland do not call the shots. They pay
billions every year for access to the single market and
Switzerland has been forced into renegotiation.
We would have to renegotiate our own free trade
agreements. The holy grail of trade agreements is an
EU-US deal. We would look pretty dumb if we were
leaving the EU just as it was signing up to such a trade
agreement. Imagine the impact on our car industry,
which exports five out of every six cars made in the UK,
if it had to pay the EU import tariff on cars of 9.6%.
Where would a foreign car manufacturer invest, faced
with that situation?
Mr Jenkin: The United Kingdom has a trade deficit
with the other 26 EU member states of £70 billion. I
cannot imagine that the EU would want to cut itself off
from the British market by getting into a trade war with
the United Kingdom. May I also point out that we
export more to the rest of the world than to the EU?
The EU is declining in relative terms, whereas markets
in the rest of the world are expanding. Surely we are a
global trading nation, not just a regional trading nation,
and that does not require us to be a member of the
single market.
Richard Ottaway: We can all trade statistics on who
trades what with whom, but about 50% of our exports
are to the European Union. We export four times as
much to the EU as to the United States.
Mr Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Richard Ottaway: I will not give way.
We sell more to Sweden, which has a population of
9 million, than to India, which has a population of
1.1 billion. That is the truth of the matter.
Mr Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Richard Ottaway: I am not giving way.
The EU is not going to let us set up an offshore free
trade island like Hong Kong, undercutting its industries.
We will have to pay for access to the single market. The
EU will dictate the terms of trade, and we will still be
under the thumb of Brussels. I say to my hon. Friend
that that is not gaining sovereignty, it is losing it. The
plan to impose an EU-wide financial transaction tax is
just a warning shot. As a member of the EU, we can go
to the European Court of Justice and challenge it.
Outside the EU, it would simply be imposed and we
would just pay the tax.
I say to the Economic Secretary that his policy on the
eurozone is spot-on. Supporting policies that will stabilise
the single currency area and encouraging growth through
integration is exactly the right approach. At the same
time, we expect the Treasury to keep a watchful eye on
the national interest in the single market. A good example
of that is the agreement on the single supervisory
mechanism in the banking union, which shows the
clout that we still carry in the EU and how we protect
our position inside the single market but outside the
eurozone. He should continue with that approach. That
example also illustrates how far we have come in building
alliances inside the European Union since the veto in
December 2011. Inside, we simply have more strength.
No one denies that the EU needs reform, and I am no
great Europhile on this. [Interruption.] MayIsaytomy
hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex
(Mr Jenkin) that that sort of contemptuous laugh does
no good to the debate whatever? No one denies that the
EU needs reform. Primarily, it has to choose between
being a social market economy and being something
tougher. In his Bloomberg speech, the Prime Minister
set out a course of action that recognises British
Euroscepticism but keeps us at the table, using our
influence. Within the EU, the UK will continue to
thrive as a major player on the world stage and our
economy will be stronger, but outside, I believe that the
future will be bleak.
3.21 pm
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): It is a pleasure
to take part in the debate. This Queen’s Speech is
important, sandwiched as it is between the Budget and
Red Book, which we already have, and the forthcoming
spending review, the details of which we do not have but

687 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
688
[Stewart Hosie]
which still casts a shadow over the potential for growth
and recovery in the UK. The Prime Minister mentioned
growth in his speech on the opening day of the debate,
stating that the measures in the Gracious Speech would
“grow the economy”. He also said that they would
“deliver a better future for our children…win the global race”—
[Official Report, 8 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 28.]
and “cut the deficit”. Given the austerity programme so
far, it looks like it will lead to 300,000 more children
being in poverty by the end of next year, and the
forecasts are that there will be up to 4 million children
in poverty in a few years’ time. It is difficult to see how
any of the measures in the Queen’s Speech can possibly
live up to the billing that the Prime Minister gave them.
Given that the balance of trade has been in deficit to
the tune of more than £100 billion for the past two
years, and that the gap in the total balance of trade has
risen by more than £10 billion in the past year, it is
difficult to see how anything in the Queen’s Speech can
live up to the Prime Minister’s description and do
anything to allow us to “win the global race”, whatever
that means.
Bringing the deficit down was another of the Prime
Minister’s claims, but as the right hon. Member for
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) said,
net borrowing was forecast at £92 billion but ended up
being £121 billion. The cumulative deficit—the net debt—
was forecast to rise to about 92% of GDP in a couple
of years, but it is now forecast to hit more than 100% of
GDP and about £1.6 trillion. There is a great deal
of Government rhetoric about what the measures in the
Queen’s Speech are supposed to do, but very little real
evidence.
However, it is not as though the Queen’s Speech
contained no growth measures. There was one potentially
significant one—the national insurance employment
allowance. However, that was not altogether new. It was
in the Red Book and budgeted to cost the Government
£1.3 billion next year. It is welcome, but because the
impact of the Budget policy decisions is to be fiscally
neutral over the five years from 2013-14, the overall
impact on economic growth of that one meaningful
measure will be muted to say the least. It is worse than
that, because any beneficial effect on growth of that
sensible policy will be wiped out entirely by the additional
cuts to expenditure that are anticipated in the forthcoming
spending review.
Charlie Elphicke: If Scotland became independent,
which currency would it use?
Stewart Hosie: It would use sterling. We have answered
that question many times. We are speaking about the
UK Government’s Queen’s Speech and how their
programme for the Session will fail to deliver growth
not just for Scotland but for everybody throughout the
UK.
Let us be clear that the impact of the one good thing
in the Queen’s Speech, the employment allowance, will
be wiped out entirely if the economy is supposed to
absorb the anticipated £11.5 billion of new cuts. That is
the figure most commonly used for what is likely to
be in the spending review. That will take the UK to
discretionary consolidation—tax rises and cuts—somewhere
in excess of £155 billion a year, every year, from 2015-16
onwards. Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has
helpfully provided some information stating that it believes
the real level of discretionary consolidation could reach
£172 billion a year by 2017-18.
The Government plan to cut £11.5 billion, in addition
to the cuts so far. To return to the point made by the
hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), that will be
added to the 8.7% real-terms departmental expenditure
limit cuts and 25% capital DEL cuts in Scotland. It
seems extraordinary that when we are looking for real
growth, the Government seriously propose stripping
consumption out of the economy to the extent of about
8% of GDP and putting an additional £11.5 billion on
top of the £140 billion or so of discretionary consolidation
that is already planned, and replacing it with only a
single sensible measure, the employment allowance.
What the Government are trying to do is not doable.
They are trying to cut their way to growth, which
cannot be done. They are ignoring all the evidence that
austerity is hurting across the board, and I urge them
even at this late stage to think again about their plan.
They should rethink not just the contents of the Queen’s
Speech or what we are likely to see in the spending
review in June but the measures that we have already
had in this and previous Budgets. Those measures will
lead, as Olivier Blanchard from the International Monetary
Fund has said, to the Government “playing with fire” if
they allow the economic stagnation to continue.
3.28 pm
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con):
When I received, somewhat to my surprise, a telephone
call from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and
Billericay (Mr Baron), inviting me to add my name to
an amendment that regretted the absence of an item in
the Queen’s Speech, I confess I was somewhat astonished.
I think it a mark of the enormous shift in opinion that
is taking place on what has for decades been a matter of
fundamental consensus in British politics, that we find
ourselves straining the conventions and normal behaviour,
and even the Standing Orders of the House, to
accommodate this debate. I say to my hon. Friend the
Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) that I
utterly respect the sincerity of his views, and I was
expressing no more than frustration that he would not
allow me a spare minute of his time to explain the
statistics on which I think this fundamental debate
should be based.
I agree with the terms of the amendment and will
support it, although I might not have tabled it myself. I
doubt that some of the noise and discord around this
issue has impressed those who failed to support us in
the elections two weeks ago, reflecting a certain and
widespread despair about the ability of all three main
parties to keep their promises on referendums, which
has become an emblem of the distrust in which so many
of our voters hold the British political establishment.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): Many members
of the British public, whether they hold the views of my
hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard
Ottaway) or those of my hon. Friend the Member for
Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and indeed
myself, would like to have the discussion. We went into
a referendum on the alternative vote with a discussion

689 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
690
led by the Prime Minister, who was not in favour of it,
and other Members held honourable positions on the
issue. This is about giving the discussion to the British
public, however they would like to view it.
Mr Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
intervention. I will not debate at length the quality or
timing of an EU referendum, although I think that
those who voted for UKIP and are likely to do so in
next year’s European elections will not be impressed
unless we make every effort to hold a referendum as
soon as possible, rather than when it suits the three
main political parties for whatever reasons we have to
continue putting it off.
I wanted to say to my hon. Friend the Member for
Croydon South that I have the figures from the House
of Commons Library, and our total earnings from
abroad constitute 44% of our GDP. We are a global
trading nation and trade a higher proportion of our
GDP than any other major European state. Trade with
the EU comprises 19% of GDP, and 25% with the rest
of the world. The rest of the world is the growing
proportion; the EU is the declining proportion.
Manufacturing is the only part that would be excluded,
by virtue of the tariffs that were mentioned earlier by
my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, and
manufacturing exports to the EU comprise 10% of
GDP, and 10% to the rest of the world—a substantial
and important part of our economic activity.
The point is that there is no evidence that we would
not continue to trade that proportion of our manufactures
with the European Union—incidentally, the figures are
inflated by what we know as the Rotterdam-Antwerp
effect because a lot of what we export to the EU is
instantly exported to the rest of the world. We are
regulating our entire economy and burdening our taxpayers
with the costs of the contribution—rising to £19 billion
gross—with our membership of the European Union.
One hundred per cent. of our economic activity is
burdened with those regulatory costs for the sake of less
than 10% of our overall GDP.
Sir Bob Russell: May I ask my neighbour and
parliamentary colleague whether anything he has just
said could not have been said by a member of UKIP?
Mr Jenkin: I totally agree. The irony of this debate is
that a lot of people in UKIP are saying things that are
similar to what is felt by a lot of people who would like
to vote Conservative at the next election. There is a
majority in this country, and I think the Prime Minister
was right to say that he wants a different relationship—a
new relationship with our European partners.
This entire debate is conducted on the premise that
membership of the single market is indispensable to our
national interest, is it not? Those who say we must
remain in the EU come what may believe that the single
market is indispensable to our national interest, but
here are the facts. I have already mentioned how little of
our GDP that we export in goods would be subject to
tariffs were we not to have a free trade arrangement
with the EU—probably around 8.7% of GDP. The idea
that 3 million jobs are dependent on exports to the EU
and that we would lose them if we left is a myth. There
is no substantial evidence that we would lose any jobs.
On the contrary, if we had a freer and less regulated
economy, we would probably create more jobs by trading
more easily with the rest of the world.
The EU is in long-term structural decline and our
non-EU markets are expanding. The UK enjoys a trading
surplus with the rest of the world—with which we trade
much more effectively—and we have a £70 billion trade
deficit with the EU. The rest of the EU would therefore
not want a trade war with the UK; it would not be in its
interest. The idea that Ireland, or even Germany, would
enter a trade war with the UK is absolutely ridiculous.
By the Commission’s own admission, EU red tape
costs 4% of the EU’s GDP. The single market does not
reduce the costs of doing business in the EU; it is a
regulatory burden on trading in the EU.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth)
(Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Jenkin: I am not going to give way.
The EU internal market has become an end in itself—it
is a means of promoting political integration. We must
accept that, in the minds of our European partners, the
single market is indivisible from the treaties. Even if the
UK were to leave the EU altogether and apply for
article 50, the EU would be legally required to negotiate
free and fair trade with non-EU countries, so we would
continue to have access to EU markets. That different
perspective, which voters and large parts of business are
beginning to appreciate, is shifting the burden of the
debate.
Are we doing the right thing in creating such long
uncertainty by putting off a referendum until 2017?
Should we not have the referendum much sooner to
bring the debate to a head? Are we too scared of our
own voters to face the truth?
3.35 pm
Mr Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East) (Lab): I
am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr Deputy
Speaker, and to speak in the debate on the Gracious
Speech. I made my maiden speech in a debate on the
Gracious Speech on 8 July 1987, following Mrs Thatcher’s
third victory. I remember using an analogy. I said that
the Government and the Gracious Speech were more of
the same poison in a different bottle. I thought of that
comment when I looked at the Conservative Back-Bench
amendment. It is déjà vu, or Maastricht, all over again.
If historians check the speeches on the Maastricht
debate in Hansard against what we have heard in the
past hour or so, I am sure they will understand what I
am saying.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): As one who led the
Maastricht rebellion, I should say that, at the time, we
made predictions. Exactly what we said would happen
has happened—that is the difference.
Mr Hood: The hon. Gentleman has been saying
exactly what he said in the Maastricht debate ever since,
at every opportunity. It will surprise no one, including
me, if he continues to say those things, but I am speaking
to the reality. Some say that the Conservative amendment
is a UKIP amendment. In fact, the hon. Member for
Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) accepted that he
agrees with a lot of what UKIP says.

691 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
692
[Mr Hood]
I remind the House of something the Prime Minister
said in his Conservative party leadership campaign. He
promised the country and his party that he would make
the Conservatives electable again, and get rid of the
“nasty Tory” image. He travelled to the Arctic to embrace
huskies, and came back here and cuddled hoodies.
These are changed days. Where is he now? This week,
with conspiracies going on behind his back in his own
party in Parliament, he is away negotiating an EU trade
deal. You could not make it up! As my grandmother
used to say, when the cat’s away, the mice will play. That
is what is happening to him.
The debate and the run-up to it are more like
Shakespeare’s assassination plot in “Julius Caesar”.
The big question is who will be Brutus. Margaret Thatcher’s
political assassination in 1990 had nothing, or nothing
much, to do with Europe, but we have the same modus
operandi. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover
(Mr Skinner) pointed out in a speech two weeks ago,
the Conservatives kicked Mrs Thatcher out on the
street like a dog.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab):
My hon. Friend is asking questions, but not pointing
fingers. Does he think it was significant that the Chancellor
made a very anti-European statement today? He made
it clear that he is in line with the people who are calling
for the referendum, and demanding we join them, while
the Prime Minister is away. He may not be the great
wizard, but he is certainly the great Machiavellian.
Mr Hood: I do not disagree with that. The Chancellor
is supposed to be the campaign manager for the
Conservative party and he could well fit the title of
Brutus. I do not want to accuse him of being a Brutus,
because there are so many of them about. It will be
interesting to see who is the first to stick the dagger in. I
should thank the hon. Member for Croydon South
(Richard Ottaway) for having the temerity to speak up
from the Government Benches in a pragmatic and
sensible way on our membership of the European Union.
One of the many questions thrown at our Front-Bench
team is whether they support a referendum. Hon. Members
should not bother to ask me. I do not support a referendum
on staying in the United Nations, I do not support a
referendum on staying in NATO and I do not support a
referendum on staying in the European Union. Yes, the
EU needs reforming, but it can only be reformed from
within. We cannot reform it and influence it from
outside, and I hope that can be taken as read.
It is my judgment, supported by a considerable
weight of evidence, that today’s Conservative party
is so far to the right that it refuses to select candidates
that are moderate, pragmatic or pro-Europe. There lies
the difficulty. I started my younger political life being
anti-Europe, but I accepted that the world moves on
and I moved on with it. In the Labour party in the late
’70s and ’80s, it was difficult to be a candidate for a
European seat without being anti-Europe. That is exactly
where the Conservative party is now. The selection
process is causing all the difficulties for its leader today
in Parliament.
Mrs Main: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting
speech. Does he not see that there is a slight bit of
humble pie he should eat when he has a leader who is
selected and guided by the unions?
Mr Hood: The hon. Lady will know that I always try
to be respectful, but that is a foolish comment to make
on such a serious subject. If she wants me to give my
comments on the leader of the Labour party, I am
absolutely delighted. I supported the leader of the
Labour party, and I might point out that he is not doing
badly, because we are considerably further ahead in the
opinion polls than the Conservative Government.
It looks like I am running out of time. The Queen’s
Speech should have been about stability, growth and
employment.
3.43 pm
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): Basically, I regard
the whole question of having a referendum as fundamental.
I led the Maastricht referendum campaign, and the
question now is about the same fundamental questions
we were addressing then. This is the problem: nothing
has changed, but much has got worse. The real problem
is one of urgency. This is not just about an abstract
theory of sovereignty; it is about the economy, who
governs Britain and whether we can achieve economic
growth, which is what the debate is actually about. We
cannot achieve economic growth in the circumstances I
shall now describe. In my judgment, it would be wrong
to wait until 2017, given that the situation is so urgent, as
hon. Members will hear in a moment. The British Chambers
of Commerce, which represents 104,000 businesses and
5 million employees, is concerned about the delay and
the uncertainty that goes with it and about over-regulation.
It is generally acknowledged by all parts of the House
that our relationship with the EU has to change, but the
trouble is with the institutional treaty changes, on which
I have had meetings in Brussels. I saw Mr Van Rompuy
only 48 hours ago and also Mr Olli Rehn, and the fact is
that they are on a railway line, and are continuing along
it. They talk about destiny, contracts with other countries—
unenforceable as they might be—and more centralisation.
The European Scrutiny Committee had an interesting
meeting on that.
Mr Jenkin: In his travels around Europe, has my hon.
Friend gained the impression that there is any appetite
in the Commission or among our European partners
for substantial treaty change that would allow the United
Kingdom to have a different relationship with the EU
while remaining signed up to the existing treaties?
Mr Cash: It is my opinion, based on extensive discussions
yesterday and over several months, that there is absolutely
no prospect of any changes that would even begin to
alter the circumstances we are now in and which are
pivoted on the existing treaties.
The problem is one of debt and deficit. We cannot
pay for the public services needed in the country, whether
health, education or whatever. I hear the point from
Opposition Members and I agree with some of their
arguments—it is not right that people should be deprived
of services—and I do not believe that the entire answer
depends on cuts. It depends on the subject of this debate,

693 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
694
which is economic growth. We can grow with the rest of
the world. We are running a trade surplus of about £13
billion with the rest of the world, other than the EU,
with enormous potential in south-east Asia, India and
Africa, which is where the emerging markets are. This is
where we have to concentrate our efforts.
On our trade relations with the other 26 member
states, I ask hon. Members to take account of the
following very alarming figures. Two weeks ago, during
a debate on the Maastricht treaty and the convergence
criteria, I gave what was then the latest figure, which
was that we were running a trade deficit with the other
26 of £47 billion. Now, some might think a deficit of
that scale is an awfully big loss, but the following
Monday the new figure came out. In one year, the
deficit had risen from £47 billion to £70 billion.
Furthermore, the German surplus, which was running
at £30 billion, rose to £70 billion between 2011 and
2012. It is essential that we take note and hold this
referendum—and hold it urgently—because we have to
deal with fundamental changes in the relationship that
will enable us to disentangle ourselves from the spider’s
web that we have got caught up in and which we have
not asked the British people about since 1975. It is a
vital question of national interest, and I beg hon.
Members to listen.
Mr Jenkin: Is not the corollary of what my hon.
Friend is saying that if we follow the programme of the
Labour party and continue to pursue a policy of closer
integration and more burdens on our economy, it will
mean more cuts, more borrowing, slower growth and
more unemployment than if we sort out this relationship?
Mr Cash: My hon. Friend is completely right. Labour
caused the debt and the deficit; now Labour Members
want to engage in more borrowing without the growth
that would come from expanding our trade with the rest
of the world.
Mr Hood rose—
Mr Cash: I will give way to the former Chairman of
the European Scrutiny Committee.
Mr Hood: I am listening with interest, as I always do,
to the hon. Gentleman’ s speech, and I have heard it a
few times—a lot of times, in fact. If he gets his referendum
and the vote is overwhelmingly, or marginally, in favour
of staying in the EU, will he then embrace the EU and
work from the positive side, in the same way as everybody
else?
Mr Cash: I have come to the conclusion that we have
to leave the existing treaties, but I will say one last thing.
The UK Independence party argument is self-defeating,
for a simple reason. If UKIP were to take a number of
marginal seats on the scale that seems likely and we
were to lose the next general election, UKIP will not get
the referendum or make the changes it wants, because
we would be faced with a Lib-Lab, pro-integrationist,
anti-referendum situation, which would be a complete
disaster. UKIP, with which I am quite obviously much
in agreement, will not produce the answers, because it is
not possible to repeal the European Communities Act
1972 or have a referendum without a majority of MPs.
It does not have a majority and it will not get one.
3.51 pm
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton)
(Lab): The Tory party is obviously going through one of
its regular hissy fits over the EU. My experience is that
it is best not to intrude in toxic family feuds, so I will
confine my remarks to the economy.
Support for the Chancellor’s policy has totally
evaporated. His intellectual ballast, provided by Reinhart
and Rogoff—namely, that growth rapidly declined once
a threshold of debt of 90% had been reached—has been
blown out of the water. The International Monetary
Fund, the citadel of neo-liberal capitalism, has deserted
the Chancellor. The British Chambers of Commerce,
the Federation of Small Businesses and even the CBI
are now openly criticising from the sidelines. The only
austerians who are still full square behind the Chancellor
are those in the eurozone. I hope he takes comfort from
the fact that that paragon of economic virtue is now his
last remaining ally. Contractionary fiscal expansion—his
policy—is, to use the words he used today, a totally
busted flush. It is an absurd oxymoron, as it always was.
Once the rate of growth has slowed below the expansion
of debt, the policy is doomed, and that is exactly where
we are. Given that, it is so counter-productive now to
continue with a policy of semi-permanent stagnation
that one has to wonder what the Chancellor’s real
motives are—apart, of course, from his own personal
survival.
The US has put in place demand-creating measures
and is steadily coming out of recession. The UK and
the eurozone have not put such measures in place and
they are slowly sinking deeper into recession. So why is
the Chancellor so obstinately refusing to accept what
the evidence is telling him? Why is he refusing to accept
what even the IMF is telling him to do? The only
plausible explanation is that this is not, in the last
analysis, a deficit reduction policy at all; it is ultimately
driven by the obsession to shrink the state and squeeze
the public sector into the farthest recesses of a fully
privatised regime. If that is so, crucifying the UK economy
on a cross of ideology is hardly a proper way to proceed.
Of course, the Chancellor likes to defend himself, as
he did again today, by saying that any stimulus to the
economy will only increase the debt and thus make
matters worse, but that is simply not true. First, instead
of being kitted out for privatisation, the Royal Bank
of Scotland and Lloyds—which taxpayers and the
Government own 82% and 39% of respectively—could
be instructed to prioritise lending for industry, infrastructure,
low-carbon technology and key manufacturing niches
in which the UK has a natural advantage.
A second option is the taxation of the hyper-rich,
who have so far contributed almost nothing to tackling
the recession that they largely caused. The latest rich list
published in The Sunday Times a month ago showed
that the richest 1,000 people—that is, 0.003% of the
adult population—have increased their wealth over the
past four years since the crash by a staggering £190 billion.
That is considerably more than the total budget deficit,
and if it were taxed at the current capital gains tax rate
of 28%, it could theoretically raise £53 billion.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD): I note that the
right hon. Gentleman talks about the “current” capital
gains tax rate of 28%. Would he like to remind us what
the rate was for the last five years of the Government in
whom he served?

695 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
696
Mr Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman and everyone
else knows, it was 10% less. I strongly opposed that; I
think that it was wrong. I do not think that 28% is right
either. The rate should be where Nigel Lawson left
it—namely, at 40%. But let us stick with 28%. That
would easily raise enough money to create between 1
million and 1.5 million jobs in two years, which would
kick-start a virtuous spiral of growth.
The third option is another tranche of quantitative
easing. The gigantic sum of £375 billion of quantitative
easing has already been printed, and it has disappeared
into consolidating bank balance sheets. A further, much
more modest, tranche of £25 billion, invested directly
into the economy, bypassing the banks, could once
again kick-start the economy without any increase in
borrowing at all.
It is also highly relevant to point out, which the
Chancellor never does, that the balance of payments on
our traded goods, which has been going up for a long
time, reached the staggering level of £106 billion in this
last year. That is 7% of gross domestic product. Worse
news can be seen when we consider the growth that we
like to think occurred in the UK during the best years
up to 2007. The National Statistics register shows growth
of £300 billion, but that is slightly less than the total for
equity withdrawal from housing for the same period. In
other words, the inflation of property assets largely
accounts for the apparent growth. So, rebalancing the
economy, which is now vital, is not going to occur
simply with a flourish of the Chancellor’s wand. It will
need a hard-won, relentless programme of manufacturing
revival, and the restructuring of the banks to ensure
that they look after the national interest and not their
own.
3.57 pm
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con):
People used to say that England’s bread hung by
Lancashire’s thread. In this debate, I want to focus on
some of the good news on the rebalancing of the
economy. The news has not been all bad, and, despite
the economic circumstances, my constituents and the
people of Lancashire have a good track record of
rebuilding and moving forward and of expanding exports
and manufacturing.
Manufacturing output rose last month. Today’s figures
show that, in my constituency, unemployment dropped
again. It dropped compared with last month and with
last year. We now have 81,000 more people working in
manufacturing than we did in 2011. Despite all the
economic troubles, the people of Lancashire live in the
real world. They know how the welfare changes have
helped to encourage people to get back into work, and
they know that the Government’s policy is trying to
help businesses large and small to export and grow.
Despite our domestic difficulties on the European
Union at the moment, that “real-worldness” of my
Lancashire constituents has been demonstrated in the
recent local elections. The real story in Lancashire was
not the United Kingdom Independence party; it was
that the Labour party failed to take back the county
that it had run for 26 years. Funnily enough, people are
not convinced by the Ed and Ed show, or by Labour’s
economic credibility. But let us move away from the
European thing. I know that the Opposition would like
to focus on it, but I think that it will pass—[Laughter.]
Opposition Members might laugh, but there are nine
marginal seats in Lancashire, and if Labour cannot win
Lancashire county council, it is not going to win a
general election fast. Labour knows that.
BAE is one of our local employers, and 19,000 people
work in the aerospace industry. Profits are up, orders
are up, and it has recently landed a £2.5 billion order
from Oman to build Hawks and Typhoons. The Typhoon
Eurofighter is made in Samlesbury and Warton. That
did not happen by accident, but because of the investment
in skills that successive Governments and this Government
have put into my constituency. Recently, the Government
announced extra funding for Preston further education
college, and more is on the way for Myerscough. Building
up the skills base is one reason why BAE remains one of
the most competitive and leading exporters in the country,
training thousands of apprentices every year—some
Government funded, some not.
As we speak, the Prime Minister is abroad yet again,
trying to make sure that we negotiate a free trade treaty
to allow British business to prosper in the American
market. Only recently, we had a state visit from the
President of United Arab Emirates, which was partly
about trying to sell more British and Lancashire-made
manufacturing to the middle east. The Prime Minister
has taken rebalancing the economy and moving forward
on growth seriously.
We have seen investment through the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills, under its Secretary of
State—the Liberal Democrat part of our coalition—that
has helped to support the Lancashire local enterprise
zone in Samlesbury, where we hope to get skills academies
and more investment in our young people.
Then, beyond that, are the changes the Chancellor
has produced in the Budget—an increase in the use of
the R and D tax credit that rewards our investment, for
example, and the rolling out of the patent box, which
means people who exploit their intellectual property in
this country will pay some of the lowest corporation tax
in Europe. That is why this country has a future in
growing its manufacturing base and is on the right path
to rebalancing.
In future, I want the Government to continue to
invest in the F-35 joint strike fighter and the new
generation of unmanned aerial vehicles. I also look to a
city deal for Preston, hopefully worth £300 million—if
we can get the Treasury to move along a bit quicker.
Something that is important for the future of the
whole country is shale gas, and it is under my feet, in my
constituency, that the Bowland shale exists. It is currently
valued at 35 billion barrels of oil equivalent of gas—a
$200 billion revenue stream, should it be extracted. We
need it in Lancashire and in the country more widely for
security of supply; we need it as alternative energy; and
we need it to make sure that this country benefits from
its assets and its mineral wealth.
We in Lancashire have a story to tell. Lancashire’s
history is about reinventing itself and building for the
future. It is not for nothing that Preston is one of the
northern cities that bucked the trend since 1908 and has
been one of the most progressive cities. Let us remember
for the future that—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order.

697 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
698
4.2 pm
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab): I am pleased
to follow the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North
(Mr Wallace), but I can assure him that it is not our
party that is obsessed with Europe. I think he needs to
get his own house in order.
The last few years have been enormously difficult for
families trying to make ends meet, working really hard
and trying to give their young people a decent start in
life. Arguments will rage about austerity cuts and the
lack of investment—there are as many opinions as there
are economists. I do not want to rehearse those arguments
today, but to talk about something practical that I
believe can help to address our economy’s problems
that are causing such misery to thousands of families
across the land.
There is sometimes a moment—in business, in politics
and in communities—when an idea begins to take root,
to gather support and to gain traction and momentum.
I believe that the emergence of social value is one such
moment. If it is pursued with energy and integrity, it
could make a reality of the so far rather nebulous
concept of responsible capitalism.
Eighteen months ago, I worked with the hon. Member
for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) to take the
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 through this
House, and I was delighted to do so. The duty to put
social value at the heart of public procurement came in
at the end of January. If implemented across government,
across local government and in private sector supply
chains, I believe it could make a huge difference to the
number of apprenticeships, the amount of local labour,
the building of small and medium-sized enterprises and
the encouragement of innovation.
Over the last year, I brought some big companies
together with social enterprises to see how they could
collaborate to renew our economy. I have been heartened
by the commitment from the private sector. Good
companies know that this is not about philanthropy or
altruism, because doing good is good business. Moving
from traditional corporate social responsibility into a
place where businesses are using their mainstream models
to make a social impact in procurement, human relations,
marketing and product development is helping to get
social value into companies’ DNA. That is the way to
get our economy moving.
Let me give a couple of examples. Sodexo, whose
headquarters are in Salford, is working with one of my
local social enterprises to take on ex-offenders to carry
out grounds maintenance and facilities management.
That is a fantastic partnership. Deloitte is helping 30
social enterprises to grow to scale under its social investment
pioneers programme. CH2M HILL, which built the
Olympics stadium and is working on High Speed 2, has
values that extend to every level of the company when it
comes to apprenticeships, training and social mobility.
Trading for Good is a brand new website where people
can ask questions such as “Which is the company that
takes apprentices? I want that company to redo my
roof. Which is the company that is building local supply
chains? I want to spend my money there.” It is a
fantastic resource.
Mr Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that
social value, if combined—as it can be, and will be—with
crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, will bring a real
democratic renewal and a modern capitalism to our
country?
Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The
combination of social value and the creation of social
investment through crowdsourcing, peer-to-peer lending
and the activities of the Big Society Capital bank,
which was a Labour idea, will take us along precisely
that track.
My final example is Interserve, which employs
50,000 people and has a turnover of £2 billion. Its chief
executive, Adrian Ringrose, recently committed himself
to reinvesting 3% of his profits in the communities
where his companies operate. That is the kind of thing
that good, decent companies can do, and it can make a
big difference. Such companies want to rebuild trust
and secure a better reputation for big business, which
has suffered from a lack of trust because of the activities
of the banks and others. There is also the fact that it is
good business.
The challenge for the Government is to enable that
activity to become mainstream, rather than a niche
activity in which only a few people engage. I ask them to
think seriously about extending the Public Services
(Social Value) Act 2012 to cover goods and major
infrastructure. Over the next five years, we shall spend
£200 billion on the really important things that we need:
energy, transport—including High Speed 2—and building
broadband. Why should we not include social value
clauses relating to local labour and local supply chains
in all infrastructure contracts? Can we not imagine the
difference that that could make?
When money is tight—and it would be tight for us if
we were in government— we can make a real difference
by gaining extra impact from procurement and by doing
business differently. We need community reinvestment,
and we need to provide incentives for companies such as
Interserve to do the right thing. A year ago, when I
presented a ten-minute rule Bill in the House, I suggested
that bankers could voluntarily put some of their income
into local social enterprises. That might even make
bankers popular, for goodness’ sake, and it is a very
practical thing that we could do.
The Government must also support the development
of measurement and metrics for social impact. There is
a lot of good work going on. The Connectives Limited
in Manchester, which is run by two inspirational woman
accountants, has done fabulous work on social audit
and accounting, but if we are to make such activity
mainstream, we need to ensure that the metrics are
rigorous and substantial. I should like the Treasury to
do some more work on that.
In the time that I have left, I want to mention the Big
Society Capital bank. It was the bank’s first anniversary
last week, and I went to an event to mark it in the City.
There was standing room only because there was such a
huge appetite for the creation of a social investment
market. The leadership of Sir Ronald Cohen and Nick
O’Donohoe is first class. They have some really good
ideas about how to get products to market, and about
new types of bond such as social impact bonds. They
are trying to persuade foundations and pension funds
to invest. I welcome the Government’s consultation on

699 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
700
[Hazel Blears]
a tax relief for social investment; I think that that is a
very good idea. It could release an extra half a billion
pounds into the market.
Difficult economic times demand creativity, innovation
and boldness. We must get behind that, and make it happen.
4.8 pm
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): It is a great
pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford
and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who made a passionate and
knowledgeable speech about social value.
Amendment (b) has been signed by 92 right hon. and
hon. Members, drawn from the Conservative, Labour,
Liberal Democrat, and Democratic Unionist parties.
The amendment respectfully regrets
“that an EU referendum Bill was not included in the Gracious
Speech.”
Members may wonder why I am speaking about the
European Union on a day that was allocated to a debate
on economic growth. The one thing that is certain is
that there is absolutely no connection between economic
growth and membership of the EU—quite the reverse.
However, it is the Labour Opposition who choose the
subject for each day of debate on the Queen’s Speech.
On no day did they choose to debate foreign affairs,
which indicates how little regard they have for international
relations in general and Europe in particular. I suspect
they did not want to let the House know of their
divisions over Europe.
The Prime Minister would have liked to put an EU
referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech, but was blocked
by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Liberal Democrats.
However, yesterday the Conservative party published a
draft EU referendum Bill. If this Bill can be debated in
Parliament, I believe it can become law.
Mr Hood: The hon. Gentleman has just imparted
some very interesting information to the House. Is he
saying that the Prime Minister has told the Conservative
party that he wanted a referendum Bill in this Queen’s
Speech but he was stopped by the Liberals?
Mr Bone: That is exactly what I am saying.
The published Bill is short and to the point. The
question is clear—
Stephen Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Bone: May I make a little progress, as I am about
to quote the question?
The question is clear:
“Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a
member of the European Union?”
If the Bill is passed, the Prime Minister could try to
negotiate a European free trade area or, in other words,
a common market, without all the regulations, red tape,
and cost, without the EU laws, the European Court, the
European Parliament, the Commission and the bureaucracy,
without the £19 billion a year it costs just to be a
member of the EU, and without the £30 billion-plus
trade deficit with the EU each year. However, ultimately
I do not believe that these negotiations will succeed, not
because of the efforts of the Prime Minister, but because
of the attitude of the EU elite.
Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for
giving way. I sometimes think there are three parties in
the coalition: my party, the Liberal Democrats; the
sensible wing of the Conservative party, whose Members
serve on the Government Front Bench; and the hon.
Gentleman’s wing of the Conservative party. However,
my information is that the Conservative party did not
ask for this referendum to be in the Queen’s Speech, so I
think he ought to have a word with his colleagues.
Mr Bone: It is very good news that the Liberal
Democrats have had a change of heart and will now
allow the European referendum Bill to come forward in
Government time. I appreciate that useful intervention.
In any case, once these negotiations have finished,
there will, for the first time in 30 years, be a vote by the
people of this country on whether we should remain in
the European Union. That will happen no later than the
end of 2017, but of course it may be much earlier.
Anyone who votes against the amendment in the
name of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and
Billericay (Mr Baron) is clearly opposed to a referendum
on our relationship with the EU. However, if Members
vote for the amendment, they are clearly supporting the
prospect of an in/out referendum. If the amendment is
carried, the House will, in effect, have said that the
Government should bring in an EU referendum Bill. It
will say to the Prime Minister that the House of Commons
supports his position. It will say to the Liberal Democrats,
“How dare you block the will of this House and the will
of the nation?”
The Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 general
election claiming that they would offer an in/out referendum
on Europe. On page 67 of their extraordinary manifesto
“Change that Works for You”, the Liberal Democrats
said:
“The European Union has evolved significantly since the last
public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats
therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum”.
That works for me. This change of heart is, even by
Liberal Democrats standards, totally absurd.
Now I shall turn to the position of the Labour party.
The Labour Opposition promised a referendum on the
EU constitution before they were elected, yet as soon as
they came to power, they dropped the referendum. On
Europe, they are the poodles of Brussels—they roll over
and do everything the EU wants, including giving away
Mrs Thatcher’s hard-won rebate. They simply cannot
be trusted on Europe.
The shadow Chancellor sort of indicated that Labour
Members would vote against the amendment today—it
was impossible to know what he thought about an EU
referendum—but every Member will have to make their
mind up. Members who vote against the amendment
are voting against an EU referendum—[Interruption.]
Colleagues from the Scottish National party will do so,
and their position is clear. Labour Members who do so
will also make their position clear—they are against
giving the people the chance of a say on the relationship
with Europe.
A vote for the amendment today would give the
Prime Minister the moral authority to bring in his EU
referendum Bill as a Government measure. Members of
the House should vote for the amendment because it is
in the national interest. It is right that after 30 years the

701 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
702
British public should have their say on Europe. When
Members cast their vote tonight, they should not decide
on the basis of party politics. That is not why we are in
this mother of Parliaments; we are here to represent our
constituents and to put the country first. I know that
some principled Opposition Members will support the
amendment, and many principled Opposition Members
will oppose it, because they do not support having a
referendum. One thing is for sure: every Member of this
House must vote according to their conscience, and
when it comes to the vote, their constituents will know
whether they are in favour of an EU referendum or
against it.
4.16 pm
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab):
The central question since the financial crash has been
how to secure recovery in tough economic times. When
the election took place, economic growth had been
restored and unemployment was falling, but since then
we have seen precious little growth, and unemployment
is rising once again. Dealing with that should have been
the central purpose of this Queen’s Speech and this
debate.
There are measures in the Queen’s Speech—some
worthwhile—to help small businesses to recruit new
employees, which we called for, and to extend
apprenticeships, which were significantly expanded during
our time in government. However, one is left with the
impression that although some of the measures may be
worthwhile, as a whole they are not equal to the depth
and durability of our economic problems. In fact, the
Government seem to have given up and are waiting
desperately for the new Governor of the Bank of England
to secure the economic growth that they have so signally
failed to secure.
The Queen’s Speech seems to be more about positioning
and fear of the UK Independence party than about
genuinely dealing with the country’s economic problems.
UKIP, however, is a movement against the political
establishment as a whole. It is based on a vision of the
United Kingdom as it used to be, not as it is or how it
will be. I have to say to Government Members that they
cannot fight nostalgia with policy or positioning; the
only way to answer nostalgia is to offer a better tomorrow,
rather than having an argument about a better yesterday.
The Queen’s Speech has been completely overtaken
by the argument about Europe. The amendment has
attracted more and more signatures, and as it has done
so, the Prime Minister’s professed relaxation has become
greater and greater—presumably, by 7 o’clock tonight
he will be completely asleep. His relaxation is not strength
but weakness, and it fools no one. It is not only about
the Back Benchers; while he is in the United States
arguing for a European-American trade agreement, his
own Cabinet Ministers are touring the studios to say
that they would vote to come out of the European
Union. It all feels very familiar, and it is little wonder
that John Major’s former press secretary said this week
that
“there are some parallels with the back end of John Major’s
premiership.
One of the differences is, that was when the Conservatives had
been in power for 17 or 18 years. Now the Conservatives have only
been in power in coalition for two or three years.”
No wonder President Obama had to warn the Prime
Minister this week that the UK’s influence is greater
when we are engaged with and in the European Union.
The notion that we can swap membership of the European
Union for some other transatlantic embrace is confounded
by that warning, which I hope is heard on the Government
Benches.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): Is it not
about time that we asked the British people—that the
people of the United Kingdom made the decision,
rather than politicians dictating to them the future
relationship with Europe?
Mr McFadden: We then come to the draft Bill. There
was no talk of that beforehand, no suggestion of it in
the Queen’s Speech. It is a panic response to the amendment,
a failed attempt to buy off tonight’s rebels. This tells us
so much about how the Government operate—short-term
tactics, not long-term strategy. However, the tactics fail
to buy off the rebels, who are simply emboldened and
come back for more. Even this afternoon we have heard
people saying, “2017 is not soon enough. We need the
referendum now.”
The truth is that whether the Bill is a private Member’s
Bill or a Government Bill in this Parliament, no Parliament
can bind the next Parliament. The time to put legislation
forward to have a referendum is before the Government
want the referendum, not four or five years in advance.
The tactics will not work in the short term; they will
simply increase the Government’s pain. Instead of stopping
banging on about Europe, the Tories are back to doing
little else. That is because too many people on the
Government Benches care more about this than about
the country’s economic problems or about being in
government.
The centrepiece of the Prime Minister’s strategy is
renegotiation. We have been here before, too. Harold
Wilson had exactly the same strategy in the 1970s—
renegotiate, then hold a referendum. He put the conclusions
to the House in March 1975. To those who have not
read them, I recommend that they do so. They will find
plenty about beef, butter and sugar, but nothing about
fundamentally altered terms of membership.
When today’s Prime Minister is asked what he wants
from the renegotiation, the only specific he mentions is
the working time directive. The working time directive
was already renegotiated in the previous Parliament.
We dealt with the on-call issue and the preservation of
the UK’s opt-out. The important thing about that is
that it was done without threatening to leave the European
Union. If that is all that the Prime Minister can come
up with, no one will believe it. Of course the European
Union needs reform. It needs to be more flexible and
less rigid and it needs to concentrate more on growth
and jobs. The Prime Minister has a far greater chance of
achieving those goals if he is not threatening to leave at
the same time. This is a broader argument about our
vision of the UK. Is it to be engaged or is it to retreat
into nostalgia? I know which I prefer.
4.22 pm
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): I was pleased to see that
the Gracious Speech mentioned tackling tax evasion,
and that the Chancellor later added tax avoidance in a
G8 conference interview. He often says he is proud of a

703 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
704
[Ian Swales]
corporation tax rate that is the most competitive in the
G20. Unfortunately, large companies can easily move
their profits and operations outside the G20. I want to
speak about the effect that this is having on the UK
economy and growth.
There is widespread bafflement about how we can
have an extra 1.2 million private sector jobs and so little
growth. Part of the answer is tax avoidance, because
many of those workers are employed by offshore companies.
For example, Amazon is growing in this country at
more than 20% a year. It employs thousands of people,
but its sales of £4 billion do not appear in our economy.
They appear in Luxembourg. Microsoft, eBay, Google
and others have large businesses in the UK but their
figures do not show up either, and the Google chief
executive proudly talked about avoiding $2 billion in
tax last year.
Now let us turn to the companies that are based here.
The tax system encourages them to move manufacturing
and other parts of their supply chain overseas. The
Government’s change in controlled foreign company
legislation makes this even more likely. Companies that
do declare large profits here will find that they get a
knock on the door from a well paid tax partner of a
large accountancy firm, who will put forward schemes
whereby corporation tax can be avoided, the simplest of
which is to export the profits to Luxembourg via interest
payments. This is a route followed by well-known companies
such as Vodafone and Pearson, owner of the Financial
Times. In fact, it is done by most of our national
newspapers, which might explain why media reporting
of this issue is patchy at best.
If a profit-making company fails to succumb to the
charm offensive of the tax partner, something more
sinister is likely to happen. The next knock on the door
could be from the vulture capitalists—representatives
targeting an aggressive takeover of the company. Let us
take a current example. The outstanding business success
and growth of Betfair has led it recently to declare £247
million in profits. Its prospective suitors are CVC Capital.
What will it bring to Betfair—better management;
outstanding new internet technology? The clue is probably
in the description of CVC as a London and Luxembourgbased
venture capitalist. I am guessing that it will bring
a shameless approach to exporting Betfair’s profits to
avoid paying UK corporation tax. Boots and Thames
Water are just two of the many companies that have
been taken over and had their UK profits stripped out
of the country and placed in tax havens.
The Government have themselves facilitated tax
avoidance, not just through the tax framework but
through their procurement and private finance initiative
activity. The Green Book on PFI assessment still contains
an assumption that 10% of total PFI payments, not
profits, will come back to the Government in tax. This
is risible when one examines the facts. The vast bulk of
PFI deals now have an offshore element. HMRC’s own
offices are owned in Bermuda, the Home Office HQ is
owned in Guernsey, PFI schools in my constituency are
50% owned in Jersey, and, most bizarrely of all, junction
1A to junction 3 of the M40 is 50% owned in Guernsey.
This is the story throughout the country. It is high time
the Green Book was changed.
The leakage of money from our tax system and the
incentives for companies to operate in certain ways are
bad for the economy, bad for growth and bad for
individual taxpayers. I welcome the moves that the
Government have already made. Let us remember that
nearly all the framework was put in place or left in place
by the last Government, and they compounded the
problem by sucking up to their friends in the City,
stripping high-level resource out of HMRC and telling
it to go easy on big companies.
I hope that the Government will consider limiting
offshore interest payments and closing the loopholes in
Luxembourg and Holland, via our membership of the
EU. They should prosecute tax evaders and expose and,
where appropriate, prosecute their advisers. They should
add advisers to their team who are not from big business
or big accountancy firms and can speak up for ordinary
taxpayers and small business, and they should increase
specialist HMRC resources. Tax evasion and avoidance
is a cancer in our society and I hope that the Government
will keep on acting aggressively to cut it out.
4.27 pm
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): The
debates on the Queen’s Speech are a good time to look
again at the relationship between us as elected Members
and those who sent us here. I always feel that the one
thing that I should be doing for my constituents in
Huddersfield is to try to ensure that they have a good
life, and most of us know what that entails. One of the
things that make me feel that the good life is achievable
is that over the years we have come closer to being a
high-skilled, high-paid economy. However, in recent
years we have faltered, and we must look closely at the
challenges that we face, globally and internationally,
that might lead to us being a low-skills, low-pay economy.
There is already great competition around the world
from people with high skills who are low paid, and I
think of India in particular. Any Queen’s Speech debate
on the economy must think thoroughly about the policies
that we pursue in order to obtain the good life for our
constituents, with high pay in a high skills economy.
I quite liked some measures in the Queen’s Speech,
including those relating to capital allowances and the
employment allowance. It is not all bad; it is just all a bit
vapid. There are some big gaps; big opportunities. We
have just spent about 18 months with almost nothing to
debate in the House, so there is plenty of room for a
vigorous programme to get this country moving and
working again.
I would have loved to see more vision, leadership and
courage in the Queen’s Speech. There are so many
things that we could be doing. Everyone will know of
my interest in skills. I think that any Queen’s Speech at
this time, when nearly 1 million young people are
unemployed, should have introduced a Bill to abolish
unemployment before the age of 25. It would cost only
between £4.5 billion and £5 billion a year, but it would
have stopped politicians condemning young people to
live in the shadows of society on a bit of unemployment
benefit here and a bit of housing benefit there. We could
have ensured that every young person in this country
was in education, training or work experience of some
kind. That would have broken, and can still break, the
curse of intergenerational worklessness. That is what we
should have had in the Queen’s Speech.

705 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
706
What is wrong? We can have high-falutin’ economics
in this debate, but the fact is that I would be in favour of
a little inflation and debt, rather than less. Keynes was
in favour of that, and so am I. I am an economist, I am
afraid, and my economics are from the London School
of Economics. We had two good things there: we were
pretty Keynesian in those days, but certainly not Marxist,
and we believed in our motto, which was “To know the
causes of things.” It means getting beneath a subject
and understanding it in an intelligent way.
There are two things that I think plague us today.
First, because people are so threatened, they are turning
to UKIP, and the terror and fear on the Government
Benches is apparent, as today’s debate has been taken
over by a debate on Europe and fear of UKIP. The fact
of the matter is that I have seen no major independent
assessment of what the impact of leaving the European
Union would be on the living standards of my constituents
and on the well-being and good life of the people of this
country.
Secondly—I will just throw this point in—I am a
little worried about one thing that is in the Bill: HS2. It
is expected to cost between £45 billion and £50 billion.
That money, if invested in the northern and midland
cities of this country, could transform the lives of cities
that are now endangered. I will use the debates as the
Bill goes through to make that point.
There were some good things in the Queen’s Speech,
although there has been a bit of a diversion today, and
it is sad to see the Conservative party in such a terrible
state of distress, but the fact is that there could have
been more content to get jobs, skills and homes into our
country.
4.32 pm
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): It is a pleasure to
follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
I very much agree about the importance of apprenticeships,
on which the Government are rightly concentrating.
One radical solution would be to reduce welfare even
further and use the money to encourage employers to
employ youngsters so that we can train them and get
them back into work, rather than giving them money to
stay wherever they are doing nothing. That would be a
radical solution, or part-solution, to our problems.
We have been talking about negotiating with Europe
for some time, and I learnt from the Library today that
we have failed to block a £6.2 billion hike in this year’s
EU budget, a rise of 5.5% on the original plan. If that is
a successful negotiation, I would hate to see a bad one.
For the United Kingdom, that means an extra £800 million,
taking our contribution this year to £14.7 billion.
Yesterday I heard Nick Robinson on Radio 4 describe
the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member
for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), and signed by
me and others, as “parliamentary graffiti”, which I
understand to be a meaningless scrawl that has no real
impact. I must say that I am slightly tired of the way the
press and other commentators just deride the genuine
aim of looking at our relationship with the EU, which is
desperately needed. Members on both sides of the
House—this is what is so extraordinary—agree on that
point. As I indicated at the start of my speech, despite
the negotiations that go on, we simply do not succeed.
Mr Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful
speech. Does he agree that the problem with the BBC is
that it is institutionally biased towards the European
Union?
Richard Drax: After I left the BBC I think it certainly
lurched to the left.
We have seen what happens when we peddle the line
of fruitcakes and loonies: the electorate, who are disaffected
enough with us as it is, vote for the party accused of
having fruitcakes and loonies. The votes for UKIP two
weeks ago only showed what thousands and millions of
voters believe. They do not believe that the amendment
is graffiti; they believe that we have a major problem
and that we—this is why I was sent to this House—have
to deal with our relationship with the EU.
The amendment is not, and we are not, attacking the
Prime Minister at all. In fact, if hon. Members listen to
what the Prime Minister has said, they will hear that he
agrees with the amendment. We have been sent here—all
of us—to look after our country’s interests and those of
our constituents. It is my view, and that of many learned
Members, that a renegotiation with the EU is vital.
I suspect that it will not be successful, which will lead, I
hope, to a referendum and the inevitable vote of “out”.
How often have I heard—I have heard it again in
today’s debate—those who are opposed to leaving the
EU say that we should focus instead on the economy
and jobs? But that is what the EU debate is all about—it
is about the economy and jobs. The hon. Member for
Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) turns his eyes to the ground
as if to say, “Oh dear, here’s another xenophobic Euro-nutter
banging on,” but that is not what I am doing; I am
speaking for our country and acknowledging what the
vote for UKIP showed. We have to wake up in this
place.
Ian Swales: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Richard Drax: I will carry on, if I may.
If we do not wake up, we will lose the respect of the
people of this country. I would suggest that repatriating
the competences that still go to the EU, despite the
treaties that have been agreed and the promises that
have been made, would do more than anything else to
generate jobs in this country. This is a golden opportunity
that we must take if we want to restore the trust in this
House and this country that was thrown away as a
result of the failed promises over Maastricht and Lisbon.
What more evidence do we need that the EU is dead?
It is finished. Look around! Wake up! Greece is a
disaster and Spain is potentially on the brink of civil
war—53% of youths are unemployed. [Interruption.]
Hon. Members say, “Oh, my God!”, but there are riots
in the streets and their own police are bashing youngsters
over the head. This is the Europe that we now face.
Margot James rose—
Stephen Williams rose—
Richard Drax: I will not give way, because I have only
a short time left.
France is a basket case. Outside the EU, the economies
of the BRIC nations—Brazil, Russia, India and China—
and Asia are growing. In the past few days, President
Obama has been encouraging our Prime Minister to fix
the relationship with the EU. We have been trying to do

707 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
708
[Richard Drax]
that for years and years, but we have not succeeded. We
joined the common market to trade with Europe and
that is the relationship that we need and must have.
Finally, this is not about nostalgia, as I think an Opposition
Member has said, but about reality.
4.38 pm
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): It is a pleasure
to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard
Drax). The Democratic Unionist party endorses his
views on the amendment, which we support. We believe
it is important that the people of the United Kingdom
should have a say about their relationship with Europe.
Some of those who oppose the commitment to a
referendum claim that it will somehow leave us with
four years of uncertainty and that that will damage
investment in the UK, but the genie is out of the bottle
as far as renegotiation and a referendum are concerned.
Any investor knows what will happen at some stage in
the future, so there should be no difficulty in giving the
people of the United Kingdom a say on this very
important issue. I will concentrate on other issues that
relate to economic growth, but I accept that our relationship
with Europe impacts on economic growth in this country.
If we are to achieve the objectives in the Queen’s
Speech of giving people job opportunities, rewarding
hard work and reforming welfare, economic growth is
important. If we are to create economic growth, we
need proper stimulus. The Chancellor and the Government
argue that we cannot borrow more in order to borrow
less. That is not true. Good, solid investment in the
economy would help us to grow and to pay our debts.
That is not the view of those on the extreme left wing; it
is the view of the IMF, which is hardly a left-wing
organisation. In fact, many of its policies resonate with
what is said by the Government. It is also the view of
many industry organisations.
More importantly, the evidence of what has been
happening in the economy bears out that view. The hon.
Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace)
talked about what is happening in his constituency.
Nearly every example that he gave was the result of
stimulus through Government borrowing and spending
to create infrastructure and produce jobs. I could give
stacks of examples from Northern Ireland. There has
been investment in our tourism industry. Not so long
ago, we got a Barnett consequential as a result of the
Government deciding to spend more money on housing.
We put it into co-ownership housing, which has brought
money down from the banks and has led to almost half
of the houses being built in the private sector. Just a
small amount of money from the public sector has
created construction jobs and allowed people to pay
their taxes, which adds to Government revenue and
helps to pay off the deficit.
There is a strong case, even from traditional supporters
of the Government, for borrowing and spending more
money to stimulate the economy. The Chancellor made
a big point today about the money markets. Actually,
the money markets are quite relaxed about this. They
are lending money to the United Kingdom on negative
interest rates. There is more demand for Government
bonds than supply. If there are sensible investment
policies, the money can be made available. The question
is whether there is the will or whether the Government
have some other motive.
I am disappointed that there is not much detail on
what the Government intend to do about banking.
According to the figures published by the British Bankers
Association, lending by the banks in Northern Ireland
has fallen substantially since 2010. We have not dealt
with the banking crisis. There is not time in this debate
to talk about the detail, but unless the Government
grasp the nettle and decide what to do with failing
banks that are undercapitalised and unable or unwilling
to lend, we will not stimulate growth. I believe that there
is great potential and that a Government stimulus could
release the billions of pounds of cash assets that are
sitting on company balance sheets, which would enable
us to get growth and achieve the objectives of—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order.
4.44 pm
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): It is a great honour
to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy
Wilson).
This debate is about economic growth, and quite
right too. It is good that the Governor of the Bank of
England has signalled that growth is on its way and that
inflation is likely to decline. That is a good combination.
It is absolutely right, therefore, that we should focus on
monetary activism.
Another important matter to which the Gracious Speech
referred was supply-side reform. We still need to achieve
elements of that, and we still have two years to do so. It
is at the core of rebalancing the economy, so I want to
say a word or two about supply chains. We labour under
an illusion in our arguments about the trade deficit if
we do not understand the complexity of supply chains
and their importance across Europe and the globe. It is
not just the finished product that matters but the
components that make it, which provide added value.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is
looking into that matter, because if we understand
supply chains we will get a better understanding of why
the European Union and the single market matter to us.
That situation is made clear in my constituency, where
Delphi makes the diesel injectors for the engines of 40%
or so of heavy trucks manufactured and used in Europe.
That is an example of component parts that go towards
an end product making a big difference to the economy
as a whole.
I move on to trade, and first to EU-US trade. We
have to have a relationship between the United States
and the European Union that makes sense and promotes
trade. Right now, there are far too many tariffs, both
the type that we know about and hidden tariffs. We have
to end that, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right
to talk about doing that. That is why President Obama
was helpful to him in pointing out that we may as well
fix our relationship before we decide to end it. That is a
simple message that we have to consider.
Germany, Italy and usually France trade more than
we do with India, China and Brazil, the economies with
which we need to develop relationships. We have to pose
the question whether leaving the EU would help us
overtake the countries that would still be in it, and the

709 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
710
answer is no. Instead, we should consider what we can
do here to improve our exports rather than worry about
having an alibi and a series of excuses. It is what we do
here that actually matters. That is why it is important
that UK Trade & Investment, for example, is providing
the right network of support for small and medium-sized
enterprises. We need to ensure that some of our SMEs
are big enough to penetrate the markets that I mentioned
and have the right skill sets and determination. We need
to start emulating Germany’s mittelstand approach to
ensure that our firms are big, robust and strategic
enough to tackle export markets. If we do that in a way
that signifies an intention to improve our export
performance, we will succeed, but it will not be because
we have abandoned our partners.
Obviously we need to renegotiate our relationship
with the EU, because no form of government or system
of institutions should remain unchanged and unreformed.
The EU is a classic example of that. However, we have
to decide what our priorities in those negotiations are
and what we need to achieve. For me, it should be
increased competition, both within Europe and through
Europe being able to compete globally. We are in a
global situation, and we cannot start arguing about
some sort of family dispute. The reforms have to focus
on the global scale and the need to be competitive.
One area that we need to explore is energy, because
we need competition and connectivity between energy
producers, especially for the benefit of consumers. I
would put such topics on the agenda, but we need to
reform and be positive, vigorous and confident.
4.49 pm
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op):
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud
(Neil Carmichael). I agreed with virtually every word he
said—I am sorry if that ruins his future career.
We are now in the fourth year of this Government,
and during their time in office we have had flatlining
economic growth, a squeeze on family incomes with a
reduction of something like £2,000 per family per annum,
and mounting debt, borrowing having increased by
£245 billion. The growth industries are the payday loan
companies or food banks, and in such a situation one
might have thought we would have a Queen’s Speech
that addressed those problems.
Instead, we have a Queen’s Speech that, as the Prime
Minister said, contains as its flagship piece of legislation
a Bill on immigration. Since then, an amendment to the
speech has demonstrated that the preoccupation of a
great majority of Government Back Benchers is with
Europe and not issues that directly address the everyday
concerns of our constituents. I looked at the Queen’s
Speech and at the Prime Minister’s introductory remarks
in support of it, and I could not help thinking that
although some measures will be beneficial to the economy,
the overall tone of its language and the way he introduced
it could be profoundly prejudicial to our economic
growth.
Let me start with the proposed legislation on
immigration. The Prime Minister said:
“Backing aspiration means sorting out our immigration
system.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 25.]
I cannot think of a more profound slur on the generation
of migrants who came to my area, set up businesses,
employed people and promoted economic growth in the
black country. It is an insult to people such as the
modern Polish worker—that demonised character—in
David Manners, the Jaguar Land Rover spares company,
which is a small business in my constituency. He uses his
ability to speak Russian and Czech to work and find
markets abroad for the seller of those parts, and last
year he created £200,000 in extra contracts for his local
company. The comments are also an insult to other
countries and a repudiation of would-be students who
want to come to the UK, study and contribute—at least
for a limited time—to boost our economy.
We have an expanding world market in bright graduates
worldwide. There were more than 4 million in the last
academic year, which is increasing by 7% per year. They
contribute £8 billion in this country alone. If we really
want economic growth, one would think there would be
a legislative and market strategy to reinforce the genuine
affection that many of those students will have for this
country, and their desire to use our first-class education
system and research facilities to contribute to universities,
local economies and the national economy.
In another quote—I cannot resist this one—the Prime
Minister stated that
“from India to Indonesia, from Brazil to China. We must forge
new trade deals that will bring new jobs and greater prosperity.
We must use our commitment to open economies, open Governments
and open societies to support enterprise and growth right across
the world.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 22.]
That is at the same time as he introduces immigration
legislation with the most inflammatory language, and
while his Back Benchers are totally preoccupied with a
policy in Europe that will marginalise us in that market.
I would like to go into these issues in more detail, but
time prevents me from doing so. The core message,
however, is that the headline issue in this Queen’s Speech,
and the subsequent reaction of Conservative Back Benchers,
is damaging to economic growth, which is the underlying
issue that must be addressed to help the people of this
country.
4.54 pm
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): It is a pleasure to
follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr
Bailey) who is the true voice of the Labour party,
particularly in his refreshing directness—we do not hear
enough these days of the Labour party’s belief in open-door,
unchecked migration to this country. My constituents
in Dover and Deal raise migration on the doorstep time
and again and say they are concerned.
Mr Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Charlie Elphicke: I will give way in a moment. My
constituents know that 5 million people in this country
could work but do not—
Mr Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I am
sure the hon. Gentleman will give way very shortly after
he has made those comments.
Charlie Elphicke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman
in a moment.

711 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
712
[Charlie Elphicke]
My constituents feel that 5 million in this country
could work but do not. They ought to have more
investment and opportunity, and more chances to fulfil
their potential. That is why the reforms to welfare to
make work pay, the reforms to the skills agenda, the
reforms to control migration, and the reforms to control,
police and secure our borders are important—they give
our fellow citizens more of a chance to do well and
succeed in life, and to see their potential unleashed.
Mr Bailey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for belatedly
giving way. His response to my speech—he has attempted
to put words in my mouth that I did not say—demonstrates
the exact problem within the Government. They are
prejudicial and damaging to the carefully constructed
and reasoned debate on immigration that we need in
order to get a policy that suits our economy.
Charlie Elphicke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his
intervention. I have set out my concerns on behalf of
my constituents, who raise immigration on the doorstep
time and again. They simply say to me, “I want my sons
and daughters to have a chance. I want to be able to get
a job, do well and succeed in life.” The Conservative
party is the party of aspiration and success, and the
party of realising the potential that each and every one
of us has. I support the Government’s reforms.
I also support the Government’s reforms on tax
avoidance and evasion. Let us imagine the Labour
party’s response if the Government doubled income tax
and let “their chums” in big business off the hook.
There would be howls of rage, and accusations that the
Government are on the side of the rich and attacking
the poor—accusations that they are latter-day sheriffs
of Nottingham—but that is exactly what happened in
13 years of Labour government. Income tax receipts
went up by 81%. The working people of this country
were soaked with Labour party taxes. Meanwhile, leaving
aside oil duties, corporation taxes went up by only 6%.
Such is the legacy of the prawn cocktail offensive,
representatives of which are in the Chamber.
The Labour Government sold the pass on fair and
open competition for smaller businesses in this country
in favour of large multinationals. People who work hard
for a living were hit with high income taxes while large
businesses were allowed to avoid taxes on an industrial
scale. That is the legacy of 13 years of Labour. I am
delighted that the Chancellor and the Queen’s Speech
rightly take action on that.
YouGov polls show that 62% of the public consider
legal tax avoidance—it is all perfectly legal, is it not?—to
be unacceptable. A ComRes poll has found that 84%
agree that the Government should crack down on tax
avoidance by businesses operating in the UK. Indeed,
60% are prepared to call the bluff of every large corporation
that threatens to disinvest from the rich, highly vibrant
and successful UK market, saying that the Government
should crack down on business tax avoidance even if it
caused unemployment and caused some companies to
leave the UK.
That is how strongly the British people feel. I feel
strongly, and I was delighted to hear that my hon.
Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) does, too.
The Government are right to deal with the legacy of tax
avoidance on an industrial scale. They are right to
tackle the problem as an international problem, requiring
international action. I therefore welcome the Chancellor’s
use of the UK presidency of the G8 to take collective
action to deal with tax avoidance and evasion.
In particular, we need to reform tax presence. The
idea that Amazon is based in Luxembourg defies reality
to the ordinary person. They look askance at Amazon
warehouses from the motorway and just do not buy the
idea that Amazon is based in Luxembourg. The rules
need to be updated to cope with the globalised, competitive,
internet-enabled world in which we live.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): My
hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. As well as
welcoming the Government’s initiative on tax evasion
and tax avoidance, will he join me in lamenting the fact
that criminal convictions for tax evasion plummeted to
107 in the last year of the previous Government?
Charlie Elphicke: Absolutely. We need to send a clear
message that everyone should pay a fair share of taxes.
We have had too much unfairness for too long.
It is also important to reform the rules on transfer
pricing. Starbucks has been the whipping boy for something
that is done on a consistent basis by all large international
businesses—accountants call it “supply chain optimisation”.
Action to tackle it would be fiercely resisted, but it is
something we should do. It is not right that profit
parking by international tax planners means that our
Exchequer does not receive its fair share.
Part of the agenda must be a positive, engaging
discussion with the European Union where we say,
“Look, these are the reforms we need.” I am pleased to
see that the Chancellor has been getting the Germans
on board and talking to the French. Indeed, he should
talk to the US, because it too is losing tax revenues.
Profits that should go back to the States get parked in
tax havens, so Uncle Sam loses out as well. This is an
international problem that needs to be dealt with
internationally.
In Europe, a key reform must be to look again at the
parent subsidiary directive, which a German MEP recently
described as the heartland of tax avoidance, and which
is too often abused. We need to ensure that the EU
works positively with member states to help to secure
their tax bases. The public finances of every member
state in the EU are under pressure. Every member state
in the EU should see it as in their interest to take
effective, international co-operative action to deal with
this problem that we all face. It is high time we stood up
to large international businesses and said, “We have to
secure our tax base.” We have to secure a fair deal for
each individual who is living in this country, so that
they pay a fair share of income tax while large international
corporations pay a fair share of corporation tax. We
must ensure that there is a level competitive playing
field for home-grown businesses, just as much as there is
a level competitive playing field for international businesses.
That would be the right settlement and tax framework
for the UK and all our European neighbours.
5.1 pm
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab):
I think that some of us who have sat through this debate
find it regrettable that, to a large extent, it has been
hijacked by the obsessively anti-European faction in the

713 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
714
coalition parties. It is not that Europe is not important,
but the debate is about the Queen’s Speech and a
reflection on the Government’s record after three years
in office. Rather than intruding on the private grief of
Government Members caught up in their internal and
agonising debates, I would much rather say to those on
the Treasury Bench that, in all seriousness, they have to
face up to the fact that after a full three years in office
they are responsible for the economy: they are responsible
for the situation we are in, and they are responsible for
getting us out of it. Unless they accept that responsibility,
they will never accept the measures that are necessary to
find a way out of the chronic situation in which we still
find ourselves.
Three years ago, after only a few months into office
and after they brought in the cuts that went too far and
too fast, the Chancellor was already crowing that the
plan was working and the recovery was on track. We
know what the recovery was meant to achieve: central
to all economic policy is growth. In the three years to
date, we were meant to have achieved 6% growth, but
have achieved only 1.1%. I wonder whether the Government
realised that what they were committing themselves to,
and which after three months they thought was working,
would achieve only one-sixth of their central economic
objective. Those who have doubts about whether they
should change course should reflect on that. Had they
realised what that would achieve, they would never have
embarked on it. The only way forward is to change
course. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member
for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) pointed out, to do
that would mean going back on so much of what they
proclaimed to be absolutely essential, and that is impossible
for them to do.
Time is limited for all Members, so I want to concentrate
on just two aspects of economic policy where the
Government’s incompetence and failure is hard to explain.
The first is investment. What the Government call the
national infrastructure plan has been variously described
by conservative organisations as “hot air”, “complete
fiction” and, by the chairman of the CBI, as “lacking
all delivery”. Where does this leave investment? One
cannot understand the Government’s failure, because
there is no cross-party debate on investment or conflict
over it. Less still is there any doctrinal argument such as
we have on economic growth or financial policy—on
the components, predictors or causal factors of, say,
bond yields in 30 years and so on. Everybody in the
House I have ever heard speak on this has said, “We
must have more investment,” because traditionally the
UK has not invested in R and D or fixed equipment and
plant as much as we should have done or as much as our
competitors. There is no argument about that.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con):
I am struck by the hubris of the hon. Gentleman, who is
a former Paymaster General. The report on the extension
of the private finance initiative by the Public Accounts
Committee, which is chaired by a Labour Member,
found that the previous Labour Government wasted
more than £1 billion. Half, or more, of the PFI projects
in the housing sector came in at double their original
budget. He needs to accept his party’s record on major
infrastructure projects.
Mr Robinson: Here we go again. I do not know of
any major infrastructure project that has not run over
budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield
(Mr Sheerman) said, let us see what happens to HS2.
They all run over budget. Some terrible PFI deals were
done—there is no question about it—but all Government
Members ever do is say what Labour did badly. We have
admitted that we did many things badly. We failed on
certain things, but it will not help to get the Government’s
plan going to say, “Oh, look what you did when you
were in office.” Nothing could be more pathetic. That is
what I am trying to get through to the Government.
They are now in charge, and they now have to face up to
their own failures and the things that need to be done to
put them right.
I come now to what those things are. I have mentioned
how the Government budgeted for 6% growth, but in
fact have achieved about 1% growth. It could not get
much worse than that. Under their national infrastructure
plan, they have about 567 projects in the pipeline, ready
to go, but in three years they have achieved seven of
them, or 1.2%. Everyone agrees that these projects are
good ideas, so why can they not get these things done?
We own one of the banks outright—I shall come to the
banks in a moment—and we have a substantial stake in
another, but the Government have created their own
business bank. It could be investing in some of these
projects, but against a background in which bank lending
to businesses has fallen by £4.8 billion in the last quarter
alone, they are offering £300 million through the British
business bank. It is no wonder they are not getting the
projects through. It is no wonder they are failing.
Stephen Barclay: With respect to the hon. Gentleman,
who is a senior Member of the House, he is just not
engaging with the facts. Public investment as a share of
GDP will be higher on average over this Parliament and
the next Parliament collectively than under the last
Government. On housing, which was my previous example,
his party’s record was absolutely shocking, whereas our
build to rent fund is addressing some of these issues.
Action is being taken. He is ignoring his own record as
a former Treasury Minister and the action that this
Government are taking. It is remarkable.
Mr Robinson: The Chancellor produces that tired
statistic every time we mention investment. Let us take
construction. The last time the level of house building
was this low was in the 1920s. Overall, the level of
construction has fallen 11% in the last year. This is
against a background of a chronic need for the jobs and
growth that investment can supply. We need a major
uplift in the level of investment. It is higher, marginally,
than it was 10 years ago, but so it ought to be. It is
pathetic that they continue not to face up to the reality
of the failure of their own programme. As long as they
do not, they will not succeed. Would the hon. Member
for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) really
have embarked on this plan if he had known that,
instead of 6% growth, we would end up three years
down the road with 1% growth? Would he? Of course
not: nobody on the Government Benches would have
done that, and if they had, they would have needed
their brains tested—perhaps they need them tested anyway.
That is the truth of it.
Then we come to the failure of Merlin and the
question of the banks. Instead of making the Royal
Bank of Scotland a national bank to invest in such
projects, all the Government want to do is flog it off

715 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
716
[Mr Robinson]
ahead of time. That will be another failure to add to the
long list. This is a Government of failure who will not
admit it, and therefore they will not put things right.
5.10 pm
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD): May I say that just
a few months ago I could only have dreamt that I would
be able to follow such a distinguished and respected
Member of the House as the hon. Member for Coventry
North West (Mr Robinson)?
Hon. Members will be glad to know that I will be
brief—I will also talk about something other than our
coalition partner’s internal difficulties over Europe. My
e-mail inbox—like, I imagine, everyone else’s—is filled
with demands that we spend more on the health service,
education, defence and so on. However, to be able to do
so in the current budgetary situation requires the economy
to grow faster than spending. Otherwise, the resultant
increase in debt would act like a massive anchor on a
ship, bringing the SS Great Britain to a shuddering halt
and leaving it vulnerable to the international winds and
tides of financial misfortune.
I want to consider five fundamental issues, which I
think the coalition is addressing. They are: jobs, jobs,
jobs, jobs and jobs. Let me deal first with jobs in our
small and medium-sized businesses. We are putting in
place £2,000 for each business to help them to take on
new staff. They include businesses as diverse as SPI
Lasers, Oswald Bailey and La Fenice in my constituency.
We are looking at helping young people to get jobs.
Already, 1.2 million apprenticeships have started. In
Eastleigh, that has meant a 65% increase in apprenticeships
since we came to power.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op):
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the unemployment
figures came out today and that long-term youth
unemployment is now more than double what it was
when his Deputy Prime Minister introduced the Youth
Contract. Does he think the Youth Contract is therefore
working?
Mike Thornton: The Youth Contract still has a few
months to go, but I think we can see that it has already
been effective, and the March figures demonstrate a
return to increasing employment and a reduction in
unemployment. What is more, part of our work on
apprenticeships is about preventing abuse of apprenticeships.
We are setting out a definition of what an apprenticeship
is, which will be a significant help in enabling businesses
to take on more apprentices.
We have also seen an increase in jobs in manufacturing,
with our continuing commitment to green energy and
£5 billion of extra investment in science and high-tech.
The electricity market reform alone could support as
many as 250,000 jobs in that sector. Then there are jobs
in the regions. I am lucky to have a very low rate of
unemployment in my constituency, but a £2.6 billion
investment in our regions is spurring economic growth
in all our constituencies, not just mine. Finally, there are
jobs through design. By making it easier for businesses
to protect their designs, intellectual property rights will
spur further investment in this British success story.
What do all those schemes mean? They mean more
jobs, and more jobs mean a better life for millions of
people, which I am sure all of us in this House would
like to see. They also mean more revenue for the
Government—more funds for the NHS, the disabled
and our schools. What is more, the Lib Dem initiative to
increase the tax allowance to £10,000—and, hopefully,
onwards and upwards—means more take-home pay for
every single one of those new employees. If that is what
Liberal Democrats can achieve when they are in government
as part of a coalition, just imagine what we could
achieve with a Lib Dem majority in this place. [Laughter.]
If Members want to hear, I will tell them what: a
stronger economy and a fairer society, so that everyone
can get on.
5.14 pm
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury)
(Lab): I should like to begin by belatedly congratulating
the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) on his
election to the House. I also congratulate him on his
constant optimism. For the sake of the record in Hansard,
I must point out how very lonely he must be on the
Liberal Democrat Benches. He is largely by himself
over there.
So, here we are after three years of the coalition
Government. The early growth that they inherited has
been strangled, and the economy is flatlining. We have
terrible rates of unemployment, particularly among the
young, for whom long-term unemployment continues
to increase. Many of those youngsters have no hope.
Living standards are being squeezed, and it is more and
more difficult for people to make ends meet. Business
confidence is dying, and investment is declining as a
result.
The country is crying out for a change and for the
Government to do something. People were looking
forward to a Queen’s Speech that would show that the
Government were prepared to do something, but Her
Majesty might as well have stayed at home. The measures
in it do not address our economic crisis at all. I am not
saying that there is nothing in it for us to welcome.
Reform of the Independent Police Complaints Commission
is long overdue. We have yet to see what it will involve,
but I hope that the commission will be improved. I also
hope that a proposal for a register of struck-off police
officers will be included in the legislation. I even welcome
some of the changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Apart from that, it is hard to see how this Queen’s
Speech will help the country. We need a new plan to
tackle the lack of jobs and growth, but it offers us
nothing. Do the Government really believe that the
draft deregulation Bill will get the economy going again?
Do they believe that by snipping away at red tape they
will encourage the private sector to rise up like the
Incredible Hulk and get the economy working? I do not
think that they really believe that. They cannot believe
that that is going to save the economy. Surely they do
not believe that they can just sit back and do nothing.
In circumstances such as these, it is surely the responsibility
of the Government to take a lead, but I am afraid that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives every sign of
being a man who has decided that he cannot afford the
loss of face that would inevitably accompany a change

717 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
718
of course. He cannot afford to expend so much political
capital on doing something new, and we are all paying
the price as a result.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): I take it that the hon.
Lady is suggesting some sort of plan B, as offered by
her party. Does she feel that the socialist model that has
been pursued by President Hollande in France over the
past year has led to success in that economy, given that
it has now entered a triple-dip recession, compared with
the growth in the UK economy?
Emily Thornberry: The difficulty is that, by carrying
on regardless, this Government are killing the economy.
I do not have time to go through my bundle of suggestions
put forward by various economists, but Paul Krugman
has said that the Government’s austerity plan is
“fundamentally mad”. I was hoping to have time to
read out more such views, but there is not time.
I would like, however, to use the few minutes that I
have to give the Government some advice. They might
listen—you never know! How about looking into housing?
For example, £30 billion spent on infrastructure investment
in housing—particularly affordable housing and social
housing for rent—would represent 2% of GDP. The
International Monetary Fund has said that the fiscal
multiplier resulting from such investment could be between
0.9% and 1.7%, which could boost growth by 2.6% of
GDP. That would be a short-term boost, but the TUC
recently commissioned the National Institute of Economic
and Social Research to look at the effect of such investment
over the longer term. That research showed that such
investment would continue, three to four years on, to
have a positive effect on debt and GDP.
This is not just about the economy; it is also about
fairness. We know that there is not enough housing. We
know that people need jobs and training, and that our
youngsters need something to do. They need hope.
Investment in housing would provide all those things.
This Government are building the smallest amount of
housing of any Government; they have the worst peacetime
record of doing that of any Government since the
1920s. Council house waiting lists continue to grow. If
the Government continue at this rate, it will take until
2129 to build enough housing to meet the current need.
Of course, we know that the Government want to cut
back on the benefit bill. They say it is wise to introduce
a blanket cap without thinking about how some areas
that have a desperate housing crisis will have much
higher housing costs. My constituency provides a very
good example. If a family of five is living in a three-bedroom
house in the private sector in my constituency and
someone is unlucky enough to become unemployed, the
rent would be £400 a week. The question I wanted to
ask the Chancellor earlier—unfortunately, he did not
allow me to intervene—was this. If the rent is £400 a
week and the cap is £500, what does such a family of
five do? Does it live on £100 a week or not pay the rent
instead? If the rent is not paid, does that mean the
family is intentionally homeless, and if it does, does the
council have to re-house the family? If the council does
have to re-house them, but there is not enough social
housing, where does the family go? Where would the
Government suggest these people go? Perhaps they
would go to Dover or to some of the marginal seats in
outer London. Unfortunately, the Government have no
idea of where these people should go. The tragedy of
the debate so far is that there has not been enough
emphasis on fairness.
5.21 pm
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): The Queen’s Speech
sets out a positive agenda—one that shows that Government
Members are supporting hard-working people who want
to get on in life and working to boost our national
competitiveness to build the foundations for much needed
sustainable economic growth.
The draft Deregulation Bill rightly focuses on reducing
the bureaucratic burden faced by all too many businesses.
It is a subject on which I have campaigned long and
hard during my time as a Member of Parliament. The
Institute of Directors has calculated that the cost of
regulation on business in this country is £110 billion a
year. That is clearly too high. This Bill will make a
difference by exempting from health and safety law the
self-employed whose activities pose no potential risk
to others. It will also give non-economic regulators a
new duty—to have regard to the impact of their actions
on growth. These are positive steps for businesses in
Macclesfield and across the country.
Our ability to innovate has always been critical to our
competitiveness. That is why it is indeed time to introduce
the Intellectual Property Bill. I welcome the fact that
the Federation of Small Businesses has said:
“Streamlining the patent system…will make it more cost effective
for small businesses to protect their inventions.”
The Bill goes further by improving design protection,
too. That is good news for this vital part of the UK
economy, which accounts for more than 1% of gross
domestic product.
As competitiveness improves, businesses will be better
placed to create more jobs, and the national insurance
contributions Bill clearly demonstrates the Government’s
commitment to this vital task. The new £2,000 employment
allowance will encourage in particular small businesses
looking to take on more staff, and it will build on the
Government’s proven track record of job creation, with
over 1.2 million jobs created in the private sector since
the election. I am pleased that we have the ambition to
go further.
The Queen’s Speech sets out an important agenda
that will improve our national competitiveness, but that
ambition does not stop at the English channel—much
to the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member
for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is no longer in his
place. There is more work to be done within the EU and
in wider international markets. As the UK’s competitiveness
improves, we need British businesses exporting more.
Britain needs to fall in love again with enterprise,
entrepreneurs and exporting. Equally, businesses need
to be more curious about exploiting opportunities overseas
and follow the example of successful SME exporters
such as J Tape in Macclesfield.
Trade associations and chambers of commerce should
help raise awareness of the sources of support available
to SMEs and they need to make sure that they are out
there representing British businesses in vital growth
markets such as Brazil and South Africa, where I suspect
they are currently under-represented. British businesses
should seize the day and make exports our business
once again.

719 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
720
[David Rutley]
There have been reports in recent days of a real and
growing appetite among my Conservative colleagues to
address our relationship with the European Union. I
can categorically confirm that those reports are true. It
is increasingly clear that the public want the issue to be
addressed as well. They understand that it is not just
about sovereignty, but poses a clear and present danger
to our real economy. I am pleased that the Conservative
party, alone in the House, recognises that, and will offer
an in/out referendum.
Pete Wishart: We have just learnt from The Spectator
that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine
Dorries) is talking about a UKIP-Conservative candidacy
at the next general election. How many other Conservative
Members are considering that, and does it constitute a
new realignment of the right?
David Rutley: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may
have read in the paper, and whatever blog may be in
existence, there is no plan for any such coalition.
Pete Wishart: Are you sure?
David Rutley: Absolutely. We are categorical about
that. We have a very clear plan. We are the only party in
the House that is presenting proposals for an in/out
referendum, and things will stay that way. On the back
of that, I am confident that we can secure an outright
Conservative victory.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Does
my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for us to get the
message across that only under a Conservative Government
will the country have an EU referendum, and that the
referendum will come after we have renegotiated our
terms of membership with the EU? That is vital if we
are to give people a proper choice and present them
with the best options. The draft Bill that was published
yesterday underlines that message very clearly.
Mr Speaker: Order. I must gently remind the House
that interventions should be brief. A large number of
colleagues are still seeking to contribute to the debate,
and I am keen to accommodate them, but brevity is
essential if I am to do so.
David Rutley: What my hon. Friend has said is absolutely
right. It is crystal clear that if the public want an in/out
referendum, it is only the Conservative party that will
offer them the choice. That is why I support the Prime
Minister’s position, and welcome the publication yesterday
of the draft referendum Bill. It is entirely proper for the
British people to have a right to vote and to make their
views heard on this vital issue.
I am keen to see a fundamental realignment in our
relationship with the European Union. Although I am
half-Danish, to me our involvement with the EU is
about hard-nosed economic benefit, and has nothing
whatever to do with some woolly sentimentalism that
others may consider important. We are not alone in
Europe in wanting to bring about fundamental changes
in the European Union. I recently went to the Bundestag
and met members of the Christian Democratic Union
and the Christian Social Union. It is clear that they too
have concerns about the future direction of the EU.
When the public can see that youth unemployment in
Spain is now at 50%, it is clear that new solutions need
to be found. That is critical for the United Kingdom,
and vital for other member states.
The Prime Minister’s recent speech has served as an
important catalyst in taking forward the debate. Urgent
negotiations should follow in the months ahead. A
Member asked earlier, from a sedentary position, when
those negotiations should take place; they need to start
immediately. Given the promise of a referendum, other
member states should not underestimate our resolve.
When those negotiations have been completed, it will be
absolutely right to let the people have their say.
We are entirely clear and serious in our intent. The
plans have been set out, and I hope that other member
states will recognise that the clock has started ticking. It
is time for action. The Queen’s Speech shows that we are
taking action to improve our competitiveness and create
jobs at home, and we need to see the same commitment
to action in the EU.
5.28 pm
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): It is a
great pleasure for me to take part in this final day of the
Queen’s Speech debate, and to talk about the Government’s
plan for economic growth. I have serious concerns
about their proposals for the big infrastructure project
HS2, which will mean that high-speed trains will go
through the northern part of my constituency, just
south of Sheffield—through Staveley, Killamarsh and,
in particular, the village of Renishaw.
My main objections are to the lack of information
for, and consultation with, the people whom the project
will affect; the lack of a coherent economic case beyond
a vague promise to open up the regions; and the lack of
any real information about that economic case, when
£800 million of taxpayers’ money has already been
spent on preparatory work, and preparation is currently
being made, in the two Bills that are to come before
Parliament, for the spending of at least a further £33 billion.
Some of the things I am most concerned about,
however, are the complete lack of understanding about
people’s lives and the communities in which they live,
and the fact that regeneration projects were blighted on
the very day the plans for the HS2 route were published.
Even though nothing will happen in my part of Derbyshire
for 20 years, people are already finding it almost impossible
to sell their homes, and businesses are starting to suffer.
The main business and employer in the village of Renishaw
is a fabulous wedding venue for people all around south
Yorkshire and northern Derbyshire. It is very famous
and has been operating for many years. Even though it
is 20 years before anything may or may not happen,
people are already cancelling weddings there simply
because of the uncertainty.
The Chesterfield canal project, which regenerates
very poor parts of the constituency, has also been
operating for decades. The HS2 tracks will go right over
the canal, and any match funding raised for the development
of the canal has already stopped. These are important
economic regeneration projects that have been stopped
in their tracks because of the publication of a train
line route, which has not even been finalised yet, let
alone built.

721 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
722
This is not a “not in my backyard” argument. The
tracks will go right through families’ houses, and through
villages in which people have lived for many generations.
They will not benefit from HS2, as the train does not
stop in Derbyshire, but the HS2 project will stop all the
regeneration and economic gains we have been making
since the closures in the coal and steel industry.
That is not the only thing that is of concern to me.
This is feeding into a far wider political problem. We
say we represent these people, but they say they are not
being consulted and not being allowed to have a say. In
fact, we are saying we know better than they do what is
good for them, but in this case we do not. I urge the
Government to consult, persuade and explain, and to
listen to all these people whose lives we are proposing to
destroy. Until we do so, I will oppose these plans.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker: Order. I was going to call a Government
Back Bencher, but none appears to be seeking to catch
my eye at present. I therefore call Mr Michael Connarty.
5.32 pm
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab):
I am very grateful to be called to contribute to this
debate, particularly since some Members have decided
to put Europe, which is one of my interests, firmly on
the agenda.
This debate should be framed in the context of a
paper passed by the Council of Europe in the last year
entitled “The young generation sacrificed”, and the
follow-up papers in which I have been involved. They
address educational needs and opportunities for young
people, the need for technical training and skills, and
the right of youth to fundamental rights and access to a
better life, because that is the generation we have stolen
from as a result of our errors both in this country and
across the EU. We should measure our Government’s
wider performance alongside how that generation is
treated.
In the European context, I have spent two days in
Brussels and the Netherlands with the Chair of the
European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for
Stone (Mr Cash), and others. I was astonished at the
extent to which not just the EU but the eurozone are
straitjackets preventing growth. We met Olli Rehn,
Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs,
who had a blueprint, put forward on 5 December. We
also met Herman Van Rompuy—one more president of
Europe—who put forward a blueprint for a deep and
genuine economic and monetary union in December
2012. On 29 January 2013 José Manuel Barroso, the
other current president, spoke at a European conference
in support of Van Rompuy’s blueprint, saying it was the
only way forward. However, what it was, in fact, was a
constraining arrangement in economics—in countries’
banking systems and budgets—as the Chair of the ESC
said. The arrangement would be contracted and would
have penalty clauses, and it would punish Governments
who are already in dire straits, and the people of their
countries, for not coming up to what are, in fact, the
aspirations of the northern European countries, who
are making so much out of the European arrangement
at present.
In fact, the statistics showed that we had a growth-free,
recession-bound EU, and alongside it we have a growth-free,
austerity-choked UK economy. As we have heard, even
in these times, our deficit against the EU has gone up to
£72 billion, which represents more than £1.25 billion
every week. These countries are in a bad condition, but
we are still in a worse condition. Oddly, the G7—our
Prime Minister was there—reported how happy it is
with the arrangements for the EU to continue to squeeze
and choke these people, but that contradicts what the
Chancellor said today. What he said about the ECOFIN
meeting suggests that there would appear to be an
argument against how the EU is performing and
constraining people. I do not know who is telling the
truth—was he just making his speech because of the
leadership bid in the background, was he playing to
the dissidents on his Back Benches, or was he genuinely
saying that an attempt is being made in Europe to
unlock that terrible arrangement set up in response
to the eurozone crisis?
The crisis is a eurozone one. Everyone we spoke to
did not talk about the countries in the south being a
danger to the EU; they said that they were a danger to
the euro. The euro has become the symbol of what they
are doing to others to punish them, because the euro is
more fundamental than the European project, and that
really worries me. There is a growing meanness of spirit
in what is being talked about in the EU: people are to be
punished because the euro is being threatened. That is
very strange, and it is certainly not what I voted for
when I voted yes in the referendum to join the EU.
There are serious questions to answer here, because I do
not think the renegotiation being talked about by the
Prime Minister has anything to do with that—it is on
the fringes. His renegotiation is to do with justice and
home affairs and Schengen agreements; it is not about
the fundamentals of the European project, which is
now an economic project driven by the euro and not by
the interests of the people of Europe.
I wish to remark on some things in the Queen’s
Speech, one of which is apprenticeships. We must be
frank about them. Apprenticeships are now talked about
by McDonald’s, which has them—in-service training
for six months constitutes an apprenticeship. Tesco and
Sainsbury’s say that they have apprenticeships, too, but
these are not apprenticeships. The reality is that 60% of
the skills shortages are in non-graduate technical skills—we
are not training proper apprentices to do the jobs that
need to be done.
Secondly, my constituency contains a large petrochemical
industry that is losing money hand over fist; it is burdened
by massive energy taxation that is not paid by the rest of
the world, and even has a 5% to 10% disadvantage
against the EU. What is there in the Queen’s Speech to
remove those burdens from our industries to let them
take people on? If those burdens are not addressed, we
will not deal with the problem in the beginning, that of
the youth who have been betrayed by this Government
and, basically, by the European project.
5.37 pm
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): First, may I say
how much I enjoyed the speeches of the hon. Members
for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Redcar (Ian Swales),
and their comments on tax evasion and tax avoidance? I
have been raising those issues for more than a decade in

723 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
724
[Kelvin Hopkins]
this House, and we are now starting to take them
seriously. If we collected the tax that is owed, we would
go a long way towards solving any spending problem we
have. The speech made by the hon. Member for East
Antrim (Sammy Wilson) was also first class, and I agree
with what my hon. Friend the Member for North East
Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said as well.
I want to focus on the economy. Clearly, austerity is
failing, and I was among those who predicted its failure.
Early in the life of this Government, I quoted Paul
Krugman and his view that the Government were going
in precisely the wrong direction. What Britain needs is a
reflationary programme, not austerity, with a boost to
public spending in specific target areas. We have 2.5 million
people unemployed, so it is logical that additional spending
should be directed to areas of high labour intensity:
construction and the public services, which are precisely
the areas that have suffered the most savage Government
cuts. Construction output has fallen by 12% since 2010
and by 20% since 2008, and thousands of jobs have
been cut in the public services. Jobs in construction and
the public services have the added advantage of pumping
additional economic demand primarily into the domestic
economy, so maximising the reflationary multiplier effects
to boost growth. Reducing unemployment quickly and
substantially will cut the bill for benefits, raise tax
revenues and bring down the Government’s spending
deficit into the bargain. Moreover, the kind of jobs
created by such a programme will go to those whose
marginal propensity to consume is high, thus putting
their newly increased income straight back into the
economy as they spend their new wages. If, indeed,
additional borrowing is required—it may not be required
if we just collect the taxes we are owed—the kick-start
should not be expensive. I do not think reflation will be
a problem. Interest rates are in any case very low so the
costs of borrowing are also very low.
There is, however, a serious problem with such a
reflationary programme. Although construction and
the public services have minimal import content, meaning
that additional spending goes initially into the domestic
economy, the additional spending will quickly begin to
suck in imports and Britain already has a massive and
growing trade deficit, largely with the rest of the EU.
The figures are stunning. We had a deficit on the
current account in 2012 of minus £57 billion, up from
minus £20 billion the year before. The goods deficit was
more than £106 billion in 2012, more than £2 billion a
week. The bulk of this deficit is with the EU 27 and rose
from £4.8 billion in January this year to £5.1 billion in
February, on course for a deficit of more than £60 billion
this year and possibly £70 billion, as was said before.
This is a massive problem.
There is a goods deficit with the rest of the world too,
up to £4.3 billion in February from £3.4 billion in
January, so the deficit is not just with the EU, but the
EU is the major problem. Britain therefore has a desperate
trade problem that can be solved only by rebuilding and
expanding the UK manufacturing sector. It is a shocking
fact that manufacturing as a proportion of GDP in the
UK is half that in Germany, and it is no surprise that
we have a gigantic trade deficit specifically with Germany.
This phenomenon is not new, of course. I have with
me a copy of a pamphlet published 24 years ago by the
Institute for Public Policy Research called “The German
Surplus”. Even then, there was a massive problem that
had grown quickly over that decade. It was just such
trade imbalances that Keynes knew would cause economic
damage and, if they were not addressed, would ultimately
cause serious economic and political tension between
economies and between nations. The 1944 Bretton Woods
conference decided to provide for essential devaluations
by deficit countries, and Keynes proposed too that
countries with large trade surpluses should be required
to revalue their currencies. The latter proposal was
rejected by the US, but the necessity of appropriate
exchange rates was recognised. This is why the euro is
such a disaster and is doomed to fail.
Mercifully, Britain avoided the euro trap and is able
to flex its exchange rate. However, it is glaringly obvious
that we need to depreciate our currency to become
competitive again and to maintain an appropriate exchange
rate so that we can rebuild our manufacturing industry.
We have seen manufacturing deteriorate over several
decades and we need to reverse that trend.
5.42 pm
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker,
for unexpectedly calling me in this debate. It is a great
pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Luton North
(Kelvin Hopkins) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk
(Michael Connarty), both fellow members of the European
Scrutiny Committee. I very much enjoy the time we
spend on that Committee, the worthwhile discussions
and debates and the evidence that we take from witnesses.
However, on this occasion I disagree with them both
about our economic growth.
Listening to some of the contributions earlier this
afternoon from the Opposition Benches, including the
remarks of the former Paymaster General, the hon.
Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), one
would be forgiven for thinking that this country had not
been left with the highest peacetime deficit that we have
ever witnessed in our history. It is remarkable that in
three relatively short years not only has that deficit been
paid down by a third, but we see economic growth
starting to come through. Compared with our
competitors—France has gone back into negative growth
and back into recession and Germany has seen economic
growth of only 0.1%—the latest growth figure of 0.3%
is a remarkable testament to the very difficult and
invidious decisions that this Government have had to
make in clearing up the crisis that was left by the
Labour Administration.
Fortunately, evidence of economic growth is coming
through in my constituency. Today’s unemployment
statistics in Crawley showed that in April unemployment
fell to 3.4%, although I appreciate, as someone who has
previously been unemployed, that it is 100% of a problem
for each individual who makes up that statistic. That
figure represents a fall on the previous month, and a fall
on this time last year. Earlier this year, I was honoured
to open a new production line at Vent-Axia in my
constituency, which represented jobs coming back to
Crawley from China—a sign of growing confidence in
the British economy. I congratulate Gatwick airport on
its significant infrastructure investment of £1 billion to
upgrade its terminals, making that an attractive international
trade destination, which is to the benefit not only of my
local economy but of the UK economy.

725 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
726
In the brief time I have, I want to touch on the issue
of the eurozone and the future of the EU, and the
significant drag that that has had on this country’s
economic growth. It is an example of a political project,
which essentially is what the EU is, rather than largely
an economic project, which is what it should always
have been. The resulting eurozone crisis means that
demand in the eurozone is down and therefore demand
for British goods is down. Despite that, our Government’s
performance in engendering economic growth is remarkably
impressive. I was pleased in the last Session to serve on
the Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, and am
pleased to see in the Queen’s Speech further measures to
reduce regulation and burden on business. If we give the
people of this country a choice on our future membership
of the EU, we can further free ourselves to ensure that
economic growth and our competitiveness as a global,
free-trading nation, a bridge between our historic links
in the Commonwealth and our proximity to Europe,
will mean that this country has a far brighter future.
5.47 pm
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): In
the few minutes available to me, I want to confine my
remarks to amendment (b). When the history books are
written and we come to the chapter that describes and
explains the UK’s exit from the EU, this week will go
down as an important and significant week. After this
week, the UK’s departure from the EU becomes almost
unstoppable.
The UK, already a surly, sulky, semi-detached member
of the EU, always available to offer some withering
criticism to one of its few remaining allies within the
EU, already halfway out of the exit door, is like some
sort of staggering drunk looking for the oblivion of last
orders, on its way out chanting, “We are the famous
United Kingdom. No one likes us. We don’t care.” That
is the reality of the UK within the EU. Its exasperated,
declining number of allies in the EU do not know
whether to boo, cheer or sing hasta la vista, such is the
state and condition of the UK’s membership of EU.
It is clear that the UK is on its way out. It will either
be out on the basis of the salami-slicing favoured by the
Prime Minister—let us renegotiate a new terms of entry,
which will obviously be rejected by most of its European
allies—or, more likely, it will be wrenched out following
the yes/no referendum plan by the Government, in a
sort of in-your-face Barroso gesture from the UK electorate.
What we actually have is an irresistible momentum for
the UK to be taken out of the EU.
Of course, the EU was not even mentioned in the
Queen’s Speech—that now appears to be an unfortunate
oversight—but it is centre stage, because we are entering
a new Session of Parliament, the UKIP session. It is the
age of Farageism, a desperate creed characterised by an
obsession with departure from the EU and with immigrants.
It is an unpleasant, intolerant, neoliberal creed with a
disdain and hearty contempt for minorities. That is
what will underpin this Session of Parliament, because
the Government know that UKIP will win the next
European election.
That is not my country and I do not want it. I want
my country out of all that. My country is very different.
The reason UKIP does not do well in Scotland, and the
reason there is the lone panda of one Conservative
Member in the Scottish Parliament, is that that agenda
simply does not chime with the collectivism and the
social attitudes and values of Scotland. That is why
UKIP got less than 1% of the vote in the most recent
Scottish parliamentary elections. I am proud that my
country is so different from the one we observe south of
the border. I hope that England and the rest of the
United Kingdom do not go down that road, but they
are entitled to have the Government they vote for, just
as my nation is entitled to the Government we vote for.
There is now the real prospect of a party whose
members the Prime Minister refers to as fruitcakes,
loonies and closet racists having a share in the running
of the United Kingdom. What will the Government do
to ensure that does not happen? They have tried to
name-call and disparage, but that has not really worked,
given UKIP’s success in the local elections. They could
try to buy UKIP off, but that would not work either.
They are absolutely stuffed. My advice to the Government
is that they had been doing all right and should have
stuck with the hoodie-hugging and huskie-mushing new
Conservatism. They simply could never out-UKIP UKIP,
which is the master of European obsession and grievance.
They should stick to their guns and ensure that they are
different from UKIP.
It used to be said that Scottish independence would
lead to Scotland being taken out of the European
Union. Not many people are saying that now.
Henry Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that an
independent Scotland would have to join the euro, or
does he want to keep the British pound?
Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is not on particularly
steady ground when it comes to the debate on Scottish
membership of the European Union. To answer his
question, we will not be joining the euro but instead will
follow Sweden’s example.
The Scottish people are observing two futures. In one
future they remain shackled to the United Kingdom,
which will become increasingly shackled to an intolerant,
right-wing agenda. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire
(Nadine Dorries) has already said that she will have a
joint UKIP-Conservative candidacy at the next election.
I do not know how many more Conservative Members
will adopt that stance. What we are seeing is a realignment
of the right. All I have heard from the 1922 committee,
which has not been very pleasant recently, with all the
disagreements about Europe, is that there is a faultline
running through the Government. The Scottish people
have a choice: they could have that future, or they could
have their own future, determined by them and based
on their values.
Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is making the
case that Euroscepticism is an entirely right-wing view.
In fact, across Europe the majority of Euroscepticism is
on the left, among socialists, trade unionists and workingclass
people.
Pete Wishart: That might be true, but that is not how
it is being demonstrated politically.
What we have observed is a total realignment. There
are two different countries, and one is emerging south
of the border with increasing UKIP results. It is absolutely
certain that UKIP will win the next European election,

727 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
728
[Pete Wishart]
and Conservative Members should be very careful about
all that. They are right to be wary, because it could
deprive them of office. I do not know what will happen,
but Scotland has a choice—thank goodness—to do
something different. We can remain shackled to an
increasingly right-wing United Kingdom, almost relaxed
about its continuing decline, or we can decide to have a
future of our own, a future determined by the Scottish
people, based on our social values and the type of
community we want to develop and grow. We can
choose to be a consensual and helpful friend in Europe,
rather than one that likes to criticise, is semi-detached,
does not really enjoy being there and is on its way out.
Thank goodness we have that choice.
I know the type of future that my fellow countrymen
and women will choose. They will opt to ensure that
their future is in their hands. They will determine the
type of Scotland they want: a Scotland standing proud
in a coalition of nations around the world. That is the
country I want and I am absolutely certain that that is
what my fellow Scots will choose next year.
5.54 pm
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): This
is a Queen’s Speech that does not begin to rise to the
challenges facing our country, that lacks ambition and
that is so thin in content it could have been written on
the back of a fag packet, had the Prime Minister not
given in and shelved plans for plain packaging of cigarettes.
It was vetted by a dubious Australian spin doctor, who
deleted any reference to a measure on curbing the
activities of lobbyists.
This is a Queen’s Speech from a failing Government
presiding over the toxic combination of a flatlining
economy and the biggest housing crisis in a generation.
House building is down and housing completions are at
their lowest since the 1920s. Homelessness is up; it fell
70% under Labour and has risen 30% under this
Government. We have a mortgage market in which
young couples in particular struggle to get mortgages,
and a rapidly growing private rented sector characterised
by insecurity over quality and ever-soaring rents.
I see first hand in my constituency the consequences
of the Government’s failure, including the lengthening
queues at my surgery of couples desperate to get mortgages
and couples desperate to keep a roof over their heads. A
building worker in Kingstanding burst into tears when
he said he was desperate to get back to work, but could
not do so—80,000 building workers like him have lost
their jobs under this Government.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con): Does the hon.
Gentleman think that the answer to this problem might
be even more cheap credit—perhaps a British version of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? What does he think we
should do to sort out the lack of availability of mortgages?
Jack Dromey: No, I do not believe that we should
take the same approach as Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac in Britain. I will come in a moment to our proposal.
Three admirable young people in Castle Vale in my
constituency told me recently that they were desperate
to do an apprenticeship in the construction industry, as
their dads and uncles had done, but they could not get
one. R&C Williams, an excellent local building company,
is surviving despite the problems in the construction
sector. Nevertheless, its managing director told me that
the previously successful companies run by his two best
friends have now gone out of business.
I also see in my constituency the working poor—people
on minimum wages and whose wages are being held
down and sometimes cut—who end up having to claim
housing benefit as their rents go up. It is a startling
statistic that 10,000 households a month now go on to
housing benefit, because struggling families cannot afford
to pay their rent. Such things are pushing up the benefits
bill, as is rising unemployment in the west midlands.
The number of people unemployed rose in the last
quarter by 16,000 to 253,000, which is up by 26,000 over
the past year.
That is why Labour proposes urgent action now. The
building of 100,000 homes would put 80,000 building
workers back to work, create apprenticeships for young
people who desperately want a future, lead to wealth in
the supply chain—all those who manufacture bricks,
glass and cement—and add 1% to GDP. The lesson of
history is that our country has never had sustainable
economic recovery after events such as the depression,
the war and every recession since the war other than
when there has been a major programme of public and
private house building, and that is why Labour’s amendment
proposes action to do precisely that.
Andrew Gwynne: Is not the set of measures mentioned by
my hon. Friend in stark contrast to the Government’s own
NewBuy scheme? We were promised that 100,000 families
wouldhaveaccesstocheapmortgages,butonly1,500families
were able to take up that initiative.
Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is right. The Government
have a miserable track record of promising the moon
and failing to deliver. I will say more about that in a
moment.
There is growing demand for urgent action to stimulate
the building of affordable housing from organisations
ranging from the National Housing Federation to the
CBI. There is a chronic lack of confidence not only in
the economy, but in the Government’s housing policies.
There have been four “Get Britain Building” launches
and 300 separate initiatives, and yet the sorry saga of
failure continues.
We now have Help to Buy. We are in favour of
helping people to realise the dream of buying their own
home. However, a powerful report by the Treasury
Committee described the scheme as “unconvincing”
and said that it was likely to push property prices up
and unlikely to produce the significant lift in the supply
of new homes that is badly needed. There is also the
bitter irony that Help to Buy will help millionaires, fresh
from their tax cut, to buy a second home worth up to
£600,000—an absurd anomaly that stands to this day.
There is one law for the rich and one room for the poor
because of the bedroom tax.
That leads me to my concluding remarks. The Chancellor
spoke earlier about the need to get benefits down,
ignoring the reality that it is soaring rents and
unemployment that are pushing benefits up. He has
engaged in the most disgraceful debate that divides our
country between shirkers and strivers. Only yesterday,

729 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
730
Lord Freud said in a speech that people affected by the
bedroom tax should—I kid thee not—get a job or sleep
on a sofa. What would he say to the severely disabled
couple who came to see me who can no longer sleep in
the same room, but whose son has moved out? Because
they have a “spare room”, they have to pay the bedroom
tax. It is an immoral tax that will cost the taxpayer more
because there will be a higher housing benefit bill as
people are pushed out into the private sector and disabled
people will be forced to move from adapted homes to
unadapted homes that will then have to be adapted by
local authorities and housing associations.
Instead of doing what they should be doing, the
Government are seeking to divide the nation. They are
driving more and more people into the trough of despair.
The essential difference between them and us is this:
they divide the nation, we will build one nation.
6.2 pm
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): I welcome the
Queen’s Speech, especially the Bills that will drive growth
and help businesses in my constituency. Manufacturing
companies will welcome the capital allowances and
companies of a certain size and charities will welcome
the national insurance rebate. Everyone, including
businesses, will welcome the fairer taxes and the
Government’s commitment to tackling corporate tax
avoidance.
I am delighted that the UK is now one of the 10 most
competitive countries in the world in which to do business,
according to the World Economic Forum. We must
capitalise on our improved competitiveness by exporting
more to the rest of the world outside the European
Union. Our recent success is demonstrated by the two-thirds
increase in our exports to China, India and Brazil over
the past two years.
In the debate about our membership of the European
Union, some people, including Lord Lawson, have argued
that we need to extricate ourselves from the European
Union to capitalise on the opportunities in the rest of
the world. I disagree with that. We should be capitalising
on the opportunities in the rest of the world as well as,
not instead of, doing the bread-and-butter business that
we already do with the European Union.
I liken that situation to running a business. I ran a
service company for 15 years and we were always trying
to balance our efforts to generate new business with the
need to look after our existing business. That is always a
tension. It is the same for the country. We have 45% of
our exports going to the EU, and we need to look after
that business in difficult times, but at the same time we
need to go after the new business. That is why, out of
the top 20 markets that UKTI is prioritising for Government
support for exports, only one, Poland, is in the EU. All
the rest are in the rest of the world, and that is as it
should be.
The EU is fundamentally about the economy, growth,
improving competitiveness and jobs. Throughout Europe,
we need to improve our competitiveness. As my right
hon. Friend the Chancellor said earlier, Chancellor
Merkel stated at the beginning of the year that Europe
accounts for 7% of the world’s population and 25% of
its GDP, yet 50% of its social spending. That cannot go
on in the EU and Britain.
The Prime Minister’s strategy of negotiating a new
settlement with the EU and a change within it, has to be
about improving the competitiveness of all member
states. There has already been some success over the
past two years. Britain has been extricated from the EU
bail-out funds, we have a better policy on fisheries, we
have managed to make some progress on the EU budget—
not as much as we would like, but at least we have had
no real-terms increase in the multi-annual financial
framework for the first time ever—and there is starting
to be some movement on regulation.
Regulation is a key matter. I am talking about not
just employment law but all regulation. Businesses in
some areas of my constituency are considering relocating
their manufacturing outside not just the UK but the EU
as a whole to become more competitive, and that problem
has to be tackled. However, we will not tackle it by
rubbishing the Government’s strategy of reforming the
EU, which is the path that many in the press want to
lead us down. We should give the Prime Minister our
backing, because his strategy rests on change being
delivered throughout the EU—change that will benefit
all member states, not just Britain. That is the basis on
which our strategy of negotiating change in the EU will
succeed.
6.7 pm
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): There may have
been concentration today on a certain topic in the
Queen’s Speech, but in Makerfield it is the economy, the
cost of living and jobs that concern my constituents
the most. Without confidence in the economy and job
security, they will not spend, and without spending the
economy will not thrive. I stress that there need to be
real jobs with real opportunities. When I last checked
the universal jobmatch site, 45 of the 67 sales jobs that
were advertised within 10 miles of Wigan were self-employed
catalogue distribution jobs, many of which demand an
up-front fee.
lp;&5qI welcome the consumer Bill of Rights, which
has been proposed to simplify and consolidate consumer
law. If people are to spend, it is important that they are
free from misleading and aggressive practices and have
access to proper redress if they have been ripped off.
They should not have to go through tortuous legal
processes because of grey areas. Last year, Citizens
Advice found that three quarters of consumers had had
a problem that was covered by existing consumer rights,
and 94% of them had complained but only 10% were
successful. Improvements are needed, and I hope that
the consumer rights Bill will be amended so that consumers
understand their rights, are clear about what to expect
and are given a time scale within which they can expect
redress.
One notable omission from the consumer rights Bill,
and from the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill,
is action on lead generators and the marketing texts that
people receive. Some companies, particularly in the
high-cost credit sector, for example Cash Lady, do not
provide the service themselves but simply gather details
and pass them on to lenders. The consumer is often not
aware who their lender is until they get the paperwork.
They do not know whether the company from which
they are buying is in a trade association or has a code

731 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
732
[Yvonne Fovargue]
of practice that they can use if there is a problem. They
think they are taking out a loan with one company
when they are actually taking it out with another.
The consumer Bill of Rights aims to provide
transparency, which I would like to see extended to all
products and services. Particularly in the high-cost credit
sector, consumers do not always know the full implications
of their agreement. How many, for example, would
agree to a continuous payment authority if they knew
that it gave the lender unlimited powers to dip into their
bank account at any time and for any amount? Such a
power also militates against the rigorous affordability
checks required.
Another area contributes hugely to the strength of
our economy but is often overlooked: the humble bus.
A excellent report was launched this week by Pteg
entitled “The case for the urban bus”, and it describes
the contribution that buses make to the economy. Bus
networks generate more than £2.5 billion in economic
benefits, about £1.3 billion of which reflects user benefits
from access to jobs, training, shopping and leisure
opportunities. The remaining £1.2 billion of benefits
accrues to other transport users and society at large
through decongestion, reduced pollution, lower accident
rates and productivity. The overall economic benefits
are around five times higher than the amount of public
funding going to the bus networks, and the bus industry
has a turnover in excess of £5 billion, much of which is
ploughed back into regional economies through the
supply chain and consumption expenditure by staff.
Public expenditure on bus networks is therefore likely
to have a large and direct impact on regional economic
growth. It helps the economy by contributing to flexible
labour markets and by increasing the number and range
of jobs accessible to workers, in particular less-skilled
workers who are likely to have less access to a car.
However, the bus service operators grant has been cut,
and there are fears that it might be under threat in the
next spending review. Instead of salami slicing the
BSOG—an easy target—I urge Treasury Ministers to
read the report and recognise the contribution that the
bus makes to the economy. It might be the Cinderella of
the transport service, but it is used by the highest
numbers of our constituents—more than any other
mode of transport—and we must look at the benefits
that the service accrues, instead of cutting it willy-nilly.
6.12 pm
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab):
I am grateful for the opportunity—albeit time-limited
and short—to contribute to the debate on the Gracious
Speech. We as a country face huge challenges, and those
faced by my constituents and the people of Birmingham
are acute. My constituents are getting poorer and my
constituency has the highest rate of unemployment in
the country. Youth unemployment is at 8.4% in Ladywood,
and long-term unemployment has gone up. More and
more of my constituents are dependent on food banks
that operate in my constituency, and my advice surgeries
are inundated with people who cannot make ends meet
and for whom simply keeping a roof over their heads
and putting food on the table is a serious struggle. That
is the reality of 21st-century Britain after three years of
this Government.
Given the scale of the challenge faced by the country,
and the reality of what the last three years have meant
for my constituents, we needed a change of direction in
the Queen’s Speech and bold action to kick-start our
economy—we desperately needed a jobs Bill. We have
an unemployment emergency in this country and there
are simply not enough jobs to go around. Instead of
acting quickly and decisively as required by such an
emergency, the Government are content to trundle along
at a pedestrian pace, doing a bit here and not going
quite far enough there, as if they have all the time in the
world—or, more likely, two years to kill before the next
general election.
My constituents, however, do not have the luxury of
time to waste. The Government do not realise that each
day one of my constituents remains unemployed there
is a clear and present danger to their chances of ever
being able to find work, and the longer that goes on, the
more likely it is that they will be for ever on the fringes
of the labour market. As individuals, my constituents
will pay a heavy price, but so will the country. A lost
generation is not only a tragedy for those unfortunate
enough to be among their number, but frankly it does
not come cheap. My constituents were crying out for a
jobs Bill—something that would have given a chance of
work to young people who have been unemployed for
more than a year, and a compulsory jobs guarantee for
the long-term unemployed who have been out of work
for more than two years. The scale of the challenge
demanded that, but the Government failed to deliver.
I am also disappointed that the Government’s proposals
contained no reference to using public procurement to
boost apprenticeship places. Again, that is a missed
opportunity to put a rocket booster under apprenticeship
policy. The Government have real power in the market—
they are the UK’s biggest consumer—and should use it
strategically and for the good of the country. In March,
the Government voted against the Opposition’s plans
to use public procurement contracts worth more than
£1 million to create apprenticeship places. The Government
could make a difference. I do not understand why they
will not accept my point and weave it into procurement
policy. It is no good them praying in aid EU law,
because other European countries have been able to
take into account the impact of procurement decisions
on the local economic environment and remain within
its confines.
In the absence of an effective, speedy and decisive
response to the emergency we face, we in Birmingham
are still trying to make a difference. My hon. Friend the
Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) deserves
special mention for the work she has spearheaded on
the Birmingham Labour party policy review of education
and skills in our city. The review culminated in a process
to create a Birmingham baccalaureate, which will embed
in the core school curriculum both generic employability
skills and sector-specific skills in areas where Birmingham
hopes to grow. I hope that, with the process we have
embarked on towards a Birmingham baccalaureate, we
can address the skills disconnect in our city, and move
to a position in which young Brummies are first in line
for the jobs that are created in our great city.
In addition, the greater Birmingham and Solihull
local enterprise partnership and the city council await
the spending review in June to see how much money the
Government will put into the single local growth fund.

733 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
734
However, the Government’s approach to regional growth
so far has created uncertainty, deterred investment, and
held back regional and local economies. I agree that
local areas should have the powers and resources they
need to get growth going and create jobs, but devolution
should not be used as a cover for even deeper cuts.
I welcome any progress we can make in Birmingham,
working with the council, the LEP and other stakeholders
to address our skills gap and get more Brummies into
work, but we will not achieve the jobs revolution we
need without the Government taking bold and decisive
action. That is why a plan for jobs and full employment
should have been at the heart of the Queen’s Speech.
The Queen’s Speech failed to deliver it. My constituents,
Birmingham and our country deserve better.
6.17 pm
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op):
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the
last day of debate on the Gracious Speech.
I want to talk about this chaotic Government’s shambolic
attempts to revive our flatlining economy. The Government
are running on empty. When it comes to the questions
the British people most want answered, they have nothing
to say. On our flatlining economy, where is the plan for
growth? On building more homes, 130,000 construction
workers are out of work, but new home completions are
at the lowest level since the 1920s.
What assistance is there for small businesses when
1,600 firms in my constituency are crying out for help? I
agree with many of the tax evasion and avoidance
concerns raised earlier by the hon. Member for Redcar
(Ian Swales). When an estimated £120 billion is lost to
our economy every year, how can the Government
believe that it is a bright idea to slash 10,000 staff from
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?
On the increase in child poverty, the explosion in food
banks and, worst of all, unemployment, I have felt as if
I am in a parallel universe sitting in the Chamber today.
I remind Government Members that more than 2.5 million
people are without a job, and that 900,000 have been
without a job for more than a year—the highest long-term
unemployment since 1996. That is nothing short of a
crisis, but for this Prime Minister, this Chancellor and
this Government, it appears that unemployment is a
price worth paying. They have not met the 4,100 people
in my constituency who cannot find work—more than a
quarter of them are young people. It is an abomination
that one out of every five 16 to 24-year-olds are not in
employment, education or training.
Labour would rightly offer a guaranteed job for all
young people who are out of work for more than a year,
paid for by a bankers’ bonus tax. Labour Members
understand that spending cuts that push young people
into poverty are not savings—they are a cast-iron guarantee
of increased welfare spending and higher borrowing,
and of an entire generation being thrown on the scrap
heap.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): Will the hon.
Lady give way?
Luciana Berger: I would love to take the hon. Gentleman’s
intervention, but I am conscious that there are still hon.
Members who wish to speak.
The Government should be doing everything they
can to get people into work—that is what should be
keeping the Government up at night. I have been looking
closely at those on the Front Bench and I do not see
dark circles under Ministers’ eyes. I do not want to see
just any kind of work. We need sustainable, high-quality
jobs where employees are respected.
The Queen’s Speech states that the Government are
“committed to building an economy where people who work hard
are properly rewarded.”
That is an aim I applaud, but it is not the reality for too
many of my constituents. We have seen a massive increase
in precarious employment: zero-hours contracts, temporary
contracts and agency workers. One million people working
part time want to work full time, and there is downright
exploitation. There can be no clearer example of that
than the experience of my constituent Sophie Growcoot.
She is 20 years old, and she and her colleagues have
been ruthlessly exploited by one of the most well known
companies operating in the UK.
Sophie thought that she had landed her dream job
when she was hired to join a Ryanair cabin crew after an
intense recruitment process. It was not until she started
that she learned she would not be paid for all the hours
she put in, only the time when a plane she was working
on was in the air. That meant not a penny for every
pre-flight briefing she attended, nothing for sales meetings,
nothing for turnaround time when a plane was on the
ground between flights, and nothing for the hours waiting
on the tarmac during delays and flight cancellations.
She was only paid for four days each week, and on the
fifth day she had to be available on unpaid standby,
ready to come in at a moment’s notice but not receiving
any payment if not called in. Sophie was told that she
had to take three months of compulsory unpaid leave
each year, and was forbidden from taking another job
during that time. If she wanted to leave within nine
months of joining the company, she had to pay Ryanair
a ¤200 administration fee. To add insult to injury, she
had to pay a staggering £1,800 to her employer for
compulsory training.
Last year, Ryanair recorded profits of just under half
a billion pounds. How can its chief executive, Michael
O’Leary, think it is fair or acceptable for his company to
be profiting on the back of poorly treated staff like
Sophie? As her situation grew worse, Sophie knew that
there were no other jobs out there for her.
6.22 pm
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab): l have to say
that, having listened to the Queen’s Speech last week
and the Chancellor today, I am still more convinced
that, sadly, the Government’s remarkably thin legislative
programme is a further reminder that this is a Government
out of ideas, out of touch and just watching the clock
tick until the next election.
How many signs have the electorate got to send
before the Government recognise what is very much
evident: that they have got it horribly wrong and need
to think again before it is too late? The Government’s
measures do not go anywhere near far enough in tackling
the desperate and growing crisis facing the country.
Populist slogans and easy mantras might satisfy narrow
partisan audiences, but they do not fulfil the responsibility
of government.

735 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
736
[Graeme Morrice]
Nowhere is the Government’s insubstantial approach
more evident than on their stance on economic growth.
That is a matter of great regret. This is the Government’s
third Queen’s Speech since the general election and all
we have had is three years of failure: low growth, falling
living standards and rising borrowing. Despite even
manifestly failing their own tests for economic success,
the Prime Minister and his Government are ploughing
on regardless with a failed economic plan.
While the Government scrabble around for a coherent
agenda, I warmly endorse the overall stance of my right
hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward
Miliband), who has set out what would be in our
Queen’s Speech: six Bills with a relentless focus on the
economy, clearly demonstrating that growth and jobs
are our No. 1 priority. It is sad to see the cavernous gap
between the perfectly sensible and laudable proposals
outlined in the Opposition’s alternative plans, and the
half-hearted and half-baked measures from the
Government.
In reality, the coalition has reached the limits of what
the parties can achieve together, so all we get is this
minimalist approach with only 15 Bills proposed. What
was left out was almost as revealing as what was left in.
With just two years to go, the Government have no
answers and nothing to say on tackling the crisis in
youth unemployment; nothing to back small businesses
struggling to get credit; nothing on living standards at a
time when families’ energy and other household bills
are rising out of reach; nothing on housing at a time
when new home completions are at their lowest level
since the 1920s; nothing to stop the undercutting of
wages by tackling the exploitation of immigrant labour;
and nothing on growth.
I would have liked from the Government a substantial
infrastructure programme for social housing. Getting
house building moving again, along with home
improvements, is one of the biggest catalysts to growth.
We also needed something for young people and jobs.
We cannot force people into a framework that says,
“Work is better for you than welfare,” if there is no
work to go into. A jobs Bill would get the 17,000 Scots,
for instance, who have been unemployed for more than
two years back to work. I want to see cheaper energy
too. People are paying too much for their gas and
electricity, and living standards are being squeezed. An
energy Bill could have tackled rip-off energy companies
and ensured that Scotland’s 400,000 over-75s were put
on the lowest tariffs.
This is an uninspired, non-responsive Government
who are too dogmatic to admit that they are on the
wrong track. They are burying their heads in the sand
while our economy struggles and the public suffer. This
absentee Prime Minister has no ambition and little
drive to change the country for the better. I said at the
outset that I thought the Government’s approach might
appease some, but now I am not even sure about that.
The British people deserve better. They want leadership
and decisive action, but all we seem to have is a Prime
Minster who used to “agree with Nick”, but who is now
“agreeing with Nige”, and, as we have witnessed, a Tory
party reverting to type with its obsession with retreating
from Europe at the expense of everything else.
I appeal to Government Members to wake up and
smell the coffee; to consider the evidence and listen to
our constituents, including hard-pressed working families
struggling to make ends meet and the most vulnerable
in society; and to devote this time to getting people
back to work, getting our economy growing again and
bringing the change our country needs. If they will not
do that, we will.
6.27 pm
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): The
country is still in the midst of the longest slump for
140 years. We need to generate 2.6% of GDP and
more than 900,000 jobs to match the output and
employment rates we achieved before the financial crisis
struck. Four years into what should have been a recovery,
we have unemployment locked at an unacceptable
2.5 million, under-employment among young people
at nearly one in five, construction output falling, the
IMF describing Britain’s economy as severely demandconstrained,
and the OECD saying that our society is
increasingly unequal. Yet what has the country seen in
this debate today? It has seen an out-of-touch Chancellor,
an isolated and absent Prime Minister, a decaying coalition
and a weak Queen’s Speech that cannot meet the aspirations
of our people. A governing coalition riven with divisions
over Europe, welfare and child care cannot unite the
country on jobs and growth.
The Gracious Address should have contained measures
to inject demand into the economy and offer hope to
our struggling construction and manufacturing sectors,
but instead it simply compounds the Chancellor’s obstinate
refusal to use fiscal policy to ease the pressures on
ordinary households. Only this morning, the Office for
National Statistics revealed that in the first quarter of
this year, pay excluding bonuses rose at its lowest level
since 2001, at a mere 0.8%. The OBR’s March fiscal
outlook reveals that the decline in real-wage forecasts
since December would cost ordinary households a further
£200 this year, which is more than four times what the
Government are handing back through their increase in
the personal tax allowance. The squeeze on incomes is
tightening its grip on millions of households, and without
an easing of that burden by the Government, the day of
real recovery will remain far off.
A Gracious Speech that was focused on the issues of
the country, rather than on managing fractures within
the coalition, would have contained a jobs Bill to help
2,000 young people in Scotland who have been out of
work for more than two years to get back into work.Even
with a modest fall in joblessness today, more than 11%
of the working-age population in my constituency is
unemployed, which is utterly unacceptable. We know
from our friends and neighbours the scarring effect that
long-term unemployment has on people’s health and,
if they can find another job after that period of
unemployment, their earnings and job satisfaction. In
the UK, 18 to 24-year-olds are now 10% less likely to be
in work than they were in 2008. We should be following
the successful example of countries such as Sweden with
a jobs guarantee—initially for people out of work for
two years or longer, but eventually extended to those
jobless for a year or more—that would be paid for by a
tax on bank bonuses and by limiting the pension tax
relief that top rate taxpayers receive to 20p in the pound.

737 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
738
A Queen’s Speech that was focused on the issues of
the country would also have contained a financial services
Bill to reform our banks, creating a default power to
separate investment banking from retail banking—if
needed—to stabilise the economy, and new regional-based
banks to boost investment and lending to our small and
medium-sized enterprises.
Families in Scotland are losing £28.63 a week on
average through the cumulative effects of this Government’s
welfare and wages policies. That should have been addressed
in this Queen’s Speech by cutting VAT, to put an average
of £450 a year back into the pockets of 67,000 voters in
my constituency. There should also have been a consumer
rights Bill, to help nearly 6,400 over-75s in my constituency
to receive an average £200 reduction in their energy bills
this year.
We need a one-nation Government who will build an
economy for everyone in our society, not just—as is
increasingly happening—for people at the top. We need
that one-nation Government as much in Glasgow as in
every nation and region of our United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): I call
Andy Sawford to speak. Could I ask you to resume your
seat at 6.35 pm to enable the wind-ups to start?
6.32 pm
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op): I am pleased
to have the opportunity to speak in this debate,
albeit briefly. It is six months today since I was elected
as the Member of Parliament for Corby in east
Northamptonshire, which is an incredible honour. Fresh
from those doorsteps, I can say that the people in my
constituency told me that they wanted action on our
economy and action to protect our vital local services.
It is to address those areas of policy that they elected
me to be their representative, and it is against those
priorities that I have considered the Queen’s Speech.
Since the day I was elected six months ago, 324 more
people in my constituency have been made unemployed.
Sadly, the Chancellor has ignored the message that he
was sent by my constituents. He continues to ignore the
impact of his policies on my constituents. When this
Government took office, 2,009 people were unemployed
in my constituency. That was far too many people, but
of course we were coming out of a global economic
recession. The figure now stands at 2,852. Youth
unemployment, which we know rose after the global
economic recession—it was far too high and we were
doing everything we could to reduce it, with programmes
such as the future jobs fund—stood at 590 in my
constituency when this Government took office. The
figure is now 770. One more person in my constituency
has become unemployed each day in the time that this
Chancellor and this Prime Minister have been in office.
We have heard what keeps the people at the heart of
this Government awake at night: they lie awake worrying
about how to pay the school fees. Even if the coalition
parties do not care about the tragedy of unemployment
for the people who are out of work and their families in
my constituency and in other constituencies, perhaps
they could be encouraged to see the economic folly of
their policies. This Government are spending £21 billion
more on keeping people out of work, rather than
introducing policies that help people to get back into
work. I wish that instead of lying awake at night worrying
about the school fees or the latest factions in the Eurosceptic
right, they worried about the young unemployed people
and the 2,800 people who are out of work and desperately
looking for work in my constituency. I wish the Government
would stop stigmatising those people and calling them
shirkers, when I know how hard each and every one of
them I meet and speak to on the doorsteps or in my
surgeries is looking for work.
After three years, this Government have no answers.
They have nothing to say. I wanted to see a jobs Bill that
would put in place a compulsory jobs guarantee, a
finance Bill to kick-start our economy and a consumers
Bill. I also wanted to see measures to deal with the
housing market. In particular, had I had more time
today, I would have said more about the real potential
of co-operative housing solutions. There are already
important co-operative models in the rented sector, but
we also need to introduce more intermediate market
housing.
6.35 pm
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): I thank
my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford)
and my many other hon. Friends for their consistently
strong arguments about the shortcomings of the Gracious
Speech. It is a Queen’s Speech that lacks vision, substance
and coherence. It lacks any answers to the big challenges
that Britain faces. As such, it is entirely typical of this
pitiful excuse for a Government. It is as though they
could not be bothered to think through the legislation
that is needed to get our economy moving, perhaps
because their minds were elsewhere. We know where
their minds were. Downing street has been caught in the
headlights. It is fixated with internal party management
and is frantically trying to hold it all together, when
what we really need is a Prime Minister and a Chancellor
who can focus relentlessly on the weaknesses in our
economy and on the action needed to kick-start growth.
They are so distracted, however, that they have lost
sight of the things that matter most to the British
people.
Youth unemployment still stands at nearly 1 million,
and the Work programme is so useless that the number
of young people on the dole for more than a year has
tripled since it was introduced. At the spending review
in 2010, the Chancellor said that there would be at least
6% economic growth by now, but we have seen barely
more than 1%. As my hon. Friends have pointed out,
house building is at its lowest level since the 1920s, yet
the Government housing scheme offers a better subsidy
for second home buyers than for building new homes.
The construction sector is collapsing on this Government’s
watch, but only seven projects from the list of 576 in
their infrastructure plan are actually completed or
operational. That is pathetic.
The Government promised to help 400,000 businesses
with a national insurance holiday for new firms, but
they have helped barely 5% of them. They are now
having to replace that legislation. We are experiencing
the slowest economic recovery for more than 100 years,
and deficit reduction has ground firmly to a halt. When
we hear the Government claim that they have cut the
deficit by a third, we must remember that it was the
same last year as it was the year before, and that it will
be the same again this year. It is no wonder that they
have lost the triple A credit ratings that they promised

739 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
740
[Chris Leslie]
to preserve. It is a simple lesson: if the economy is
flatlining, they should not be surprised if the deficit
stubbornly remains high.
The Government are either too weak to admit that
they have made mistakes or too distracted to see it for
themselves. As a result, we are left with a legislative
agenda that fails to rise to the challenges facing our
country. These Ministers see consumers and businesses
that lack confidence and they see weak economic demand,
but their Government’s response is to pull back from
the role that they should play, pull the rug from beneath
the feet of those who are trying to move forward, pull
away the safety net from families facing hardship and
pull up the drawbridge against the entrepreneurs and
investment that our country needs.
Where is the jobs Bill to ensure that all the long-term
unemployed are offered a decent job opportunity on at
least the minimum wage, with the private sector in
partnership with the Government? We could do all that,
and cover the costs, if only the Chancellor would stop
being so weak towards the banks and instead make
them pay their fair share. Where is the finance Bill to
reverse the unfair tax cuts for the richest 1% and to help
to make work pay with a 10p starting rate of income
tax? Where are the measures that my hon. Friends have
so eloquently called for to tackle rip-off energy bills,
extortionate train fares and rogue landlords? Where is
the action, the drive, the activity? Nowhere, because the
Government are frozen to the spot.
It says everything about the hollowness of this
Government that the Queen’s Speech debate today has
been totally dominated by one subject that is not even
in it. Where once we had a Conservative Prime Minister
who boasted of her convictions, tonight we have a
Conservative Cabinet united only by their abstention.
As that Prime Minister once said, this is not leadership
but “followership”. The truth is that this Queen’s Speech
is not a legislative programme of a functioning Government;
it is a sticking-plaster programme trying desperately to
hold things together while Conservative MPs kick lumps
out of the Prime Minister.
A week ago, the Prime Minister did not think that an
EU referendum was important enough to put in the
Queen’s Speech, but a week later we find that it is the
first Bill that the Government have published. If they
want a referendum, why are they not supporting the
amendment; if they do not want a referendum, why
have they drafted their Bill?
The draft Bill that the Government have rushed
out—I do not know whether the Chief Secretary or the
Chancellor had a hand in the very technical drafting of
the one side of A4—had nothing to do with consulting
the public; it was all about silencing the Conservative
party’s internal divisions. They are not so much a coalition
as a contradiction. There are three parties in this
Government: the two faces of the Conservative party in
league with the Liberal Democrats—perhaps best
represented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to
whom I wish many happy returns today. Hon. Members
will be interested to know that this right hon. Gentleman
spent a decade of his life before entering this House
making the case for a federal Europe. What a triumph it
is for the Government Whips facing a difficult vote on
Europe that the final speech in support of the Government’s
programme should come from the former chief spokesman
for the campaign to join the euro. You couldn’t make it
up, Madam Deputy Speaker. The sad truth is that this
Government are too weak, too divided and too distracted;
they are fiddling on about Europe while the economy
burns.
Mr McFadden: On the subject of the Government’s
tactics over the rushed, panicked publication of this
referendum Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that today’s
debate shows that the tactic has already failed because
during the debate the people who wanted this were
already asking the Government to go further by having
the referendum this side of the general election rather
than after the next one?
Chris Leslie: The Prime Minister said yesterday, “No
more concessions; that is the line in the sand; this is as
far as they will go”, It is amazing to think, though, that
he has to keep feeding the beast. The problem is that
Conservative Members are carrying on a bit like the
strange man in the corner of that country pub endlessly
moaning about the dreadful threat of outsiders and
incomers; I have to tell them that if they spend all their
time trying to be like UKIP, they should not be surprised
when people vote for the real thing.
We are left with a Government increasingly out of
touch with the real problems facing real families across
Britain. Tonight, it is those families that are paying the
price: higher taxes because growth is stagnant and lower
living standards because wages are falling. Every year
that goes by while our economy stands still and while
our Government are divided and distracted, our
international competitors get further and further ahead.
The Queen’s Speech lists 15 Bills that look as though
full time has been called for this Parliament, not just the
end of the first half of it. The Government’s legislative
agenda, supposedly to drive Britain forward, did not
even make it from Downing Street to the Cabinet Office
before running out of support. We should look at their
child care strategy, stumbling in more directions than a
toddler learning to walk. They are not going to convince
the public that it is sensible to have one nursery worker
looking after six two-year-olds on their own if they
cannot even persuade their own Deputy Prime Minister.
Surely, the Prime Minister of all people must know how
difficult it is single-handedly to watch over a group of
immature and disobedient trouble-makers, constantly
throwing tantrums. They cannot even manage the basics.
Just at the moment when we need a strong voice for
the United Kingdom arguing for the reforms and change
of direction we need across the European economy, we
get a Prime Minister saying one thing, an Education
Secretary who is not here and a Defence Secretary who
is not here saying another, while his Back Benchers are
revolting and the Deputy Prime Minister is wielding his
veto. Our country and our partners deserve better than
that. Britain needs to be leading in Europe, not leaving
Europe, and the Prime Minister should be brave enough
to say it. He should stand up to those who are undermining
his authority. On the very day when he was extolling the
virtues of a new EU trade deal with the United States,
his own Ministers implied that they would rather turn
their backs on that £10 billion advantage.
The amendment has blown the last semblance of
unity in the coalition to smithereens. The Prime Minister
could not even tell his own troops to vote against it, so

741 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
742
we have ended up with the absurd spectacle of Ministers
being told to abstain while the Prime Minister is supposedly
“chillaxed” about the rest of them supporting it. The
Prime Minister should not be relaxed when those on his
own side express regrets about his own Government
and his own Queen’s Speech; he should be embarrassed
by it. He should not “chill” at the thought; he should be
chilled by it. He should have led from the start and
asserted his authority, but he is too weak, and his party
is too divided and distracted to be brought into line.
The fact is that this in/out, in/out, hokey-cokey
referendum policy sends all the wrong signals. The
Prime Minister’s party is left leaderless, and the country
is left rudderless. Make no mistake, Madam Deputy
Speaker: there is a real-world price to be paid for this
weakness, and it will be paid in jobs, with inward
investors left mystified about whether or not they would
have access to a single market with 500 million customers
if they came here.
When will the Conservatives realise that the top
priority for this country must be the strength of our
economy, not their obsession with Europe? The Prime
Minister once said:
“Instead of talking about the things that most people care
about… we were banging on about Europe.”
They are back to banging on, and on, and on—not
about jobs, not about growth, not about recovery, but
about Europe, yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are
too distracted to see what needs to be done, too divided
to agree on how to do it, and too weak to take the
action that the country needs. Weak, divided, distracted:
we see a Government who are slowly imploding under
the weight of their own contradictions.
Britain, at home and in Europe, needs a Government
who are strong enough to make the tough decisions for
our country’s future, united in seeing those decisions
through, and focused on securing growth and recovery.
That is the only genuine way of improving our national
finances. Britain needs that one-nation Government
and we need it now, but sadly, with this Queen’s Speech,
with this Government and with this Prime Minister,
Britain must wait.
6.47 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander):
This has been an interesting and, at times, informed
debate. Some very good contributions were made in
support of the Queen’s Speech, particularly by the hon.
Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), my hon. Friends
the Members for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and for
Redcar (Ian Swales), and the hon. Members for Stourbridge
(Margot James) and for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway).
They were a pleasure to listen to on my 41st birthday—and
I am grateful to the shadow Financial Secretary for his
good wishes. Many Opposition Members spoke against
the Queen’s Speech, notably the hon. Members for
Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), for Huddersfield
(Mr Sheerman) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack
Dromey), who presented their arguments passionately.
The debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.] Of course
it was opened by the shadow Chancellor; the Chancellor
opened it on behalf of the Government. How could I
forget the “busted flush”?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the
welcome improvements in United Kingdom growth in
the first quarter of the year, noting the contrast with
today’s very unwelcome first-quarter figures in France
and Germany. Labour Members certainly talk a great
deal less than they did a year ago about their French
connection. Perhaps they are worried about the fact
that “FCUK” is now thought to be an anagram of their
economic policy.
A few of the shadow Chancellor’s colleagues certainly
seem to think that he should move on. One senior figure
recently said “Balls is a busted flush when it comes to
economic credibility.” Given a cost of £28 billion in
extra borrowing, the Opposition’s alternative Queen’s
Speech is certainly not economically credible, and I urge
the House to reject their amendment.
This Queen’s Speech was motivated by the Government’s
wish to create a stronger economy in a fair society, in
which everyone can get on in life—
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) rose—
Danny Alexander:—including the hon. Gentleman.
Karl Turner: I suspect the right hon. Gentleman
remembers that he visited my constituency last year to
see the plans for a major new facility for Siemens to
manufacture offshore wind turbines. Will he advise his
Back-Bench Tory colleagues whether he thinks an in/out
referendum would encourage Siemens to say yes or no?
Danny Alexander: I certainly do remember that visit,
and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work to
secure that investment, along with many members of
the Government, not least my right hon. Friend the
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The
Prime Minister has also worked very closely with Siemens
in relation to that. My answer to the question is no, I do
not think an in/out referendum or campaigning for
Britain to leave the EU is particularly helpful in attracting
inward investment of the sort the hon. Gentleman
describes.
The Queen’s Speech contained a number of measures
that will help people who want to get on, because the
best way of increasing employment, increasing output
and increasing growth is by creating a system that helps
those who want to offer work and those who want to
find work. Our new national insurance allowance will
reduce the costs of employment for employers, and
especially for small businesses looking to hire their first
member of staff or expand their work force. We estimate
that the £2,000 allowance in the Bill in question will
benefit 1.25 million businesses, most of them small
businesses. Our new tax-free arrangements on child care
will reduce the cost of employment for employees,
putting money back into the pockets of hard-working
families and ensuring that it makes financial sense for
parents to go out and seek work. The continuation of
our reforms on trainees and apprenticeships will go a
long way towards addressing employers’ concerns that
some young people lack the right skills, attitudes or
experience when applying for work. Alongside our muchneeded
welfare reforms through the introduction of the
universal credit, these changes demonstrate that we are
creating a society where it pays to find work, and where
the Government will help all who want to do so.

743 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
744
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): The Chief
Secretary and his party leader have chosen to flex their
muscles on a couple of issues, including Europe and
child care ratios. Can we therefore assume that they
support all the other unfair measures on which they have
chosen not to flex their muscles, such as the bedroom
tax and people losing contributory employment allowance
after a year?
Danny Alexander: I have to say to the hon. Lady that
I think the fact that we inherited a welfare system where
for too many people it did not pay to work is one of the
greatest scandals of Labour’s time in government, so I
make no apology whatever for reforming the welfare
system and putting in place a universal credit where
everybody on benefits knows they would be better off
in work. That is the right thing for the country, and I am
happy to support it.
The measures in the Queen’s Speech will also help all
those workers who want to get on and plan for their
futures. Our changes to the single-tier pension will
provide millions of people—particularly women with
broken work records, the low paid and the self-employed—
with a firm foundation to support their saving for
retirement. The single tier will be implemented from
April 2016, and I am sure Members will join me in
congratulating the Minister of State, Department for
Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for
Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), on his excellent
work in bringing this policy forward to this stage.
The Queen’s Speech recognises that if we want our
economy to succeed in the 21st century, we need to
make significant changes to our business environment.
We will not succeed in the 21st century if our businesses
are slowed down by regulation, which is why we are
taking steps through the deregulation Bill to remove
excessive red tape from small businesses and to repeal
legislation that no longer serves a practical use.
Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?
Danny Alexander: I want to make some progress, as I
have a few further things to say.
We will not succeed in the 21st century if our businesses
are slowed down by an outdated infrastructure. That is
why we are increasing capital investment plans by £3 billion
a year from 2015-16, meaning public investment will be
higher on average over this Parliament than it was
under our predecessors. That investment will help to
improve our digital networks and our road and rail
networks. We want to connect our biggest cities in a
manner fit for modern business needs, and our investment
in High Speed 2 will be a crucial investment for British
jobs and prosperity. The hon. Member for North East
Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) spoke against HS2 partly
on the basis that there had been a decline in wedding
bookings at an important venue in her constituency. I
hope very much the progress of the equal marriage Bill
will help raise demand at that venue.
In a debate focused on jobs and growth, a lot of
Members have talked about the subject of Europe, and
I have to say that I do not think contemplating British
exit from the EU is helpful in supporting jobs and
growth in this country. So I would like to remind the
House of some of the economic opportunities that we
gain from our membership of the European Union.
Our EU membership supports UK jobs, prosperity and
growth through increased trade, both inside the single
market and outside, through free trade agreements. One
in 10 jobs in this country—3.5 million jobs—are linked
to that trade with the European Union. If we want to
win the global race, we need to be part of a strong team.
Ian Swales: Is the Minister aware that the number of
jobs in the UK has gone up every single year since we
joined the EU, except 2009, and went down in eight of
the previous 20 years?
Danny Alexander: I was not aware of that fact, but
the House will remember what happened in 2009 and
who was responsible.
The single market helps the UK to attract inward
investment. As part of the largest single market in the
world—it has 500 million people and is worth £11 trillion
—the UK hosts more headquarters of non-EU businesses
than France, Germany and the Netherlands combined.
UK consumers benefit from EU regulatory standards,
and the collective voice of EU member states helps to
advance UK interests and influence throughout the
world, as the US President said only this week.
Mr Jenkin: What evidence is there that the United
Kingdom would be unable to negotiate a free trade
agreement of its own with the United States if we were
not part of the European Union and that we would not
be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with the
European Union if we were outside it? The treaties say
that the EU would have to do that.
Danny Alexander: I respect the sincerity of my hon.
Friend’s position. He has expressed those views for very
many years and has done so coherently. As a politician,
I believe, however, in breaking down barriers between
peoples, not erecting new barriers, and I was making
this point at the Scottish Affairs Committee today on
the subject of Scottish independence. So of course it
would be possible to strike these agreements, but the net
effect on the UK economy of such an approach would
be much less advantageous than being part of the
largest single market in the world. The collective voice
of the EU helps to advance UK interests.
Mr Bone: Will my right hon. Friend clear up one
point? Are the Liberal Democrats blocking the Conservative
party from introducing an EU referendum Bill in
Government time?
Danny Alexander: I cannot block any Member picking
up that Bill in the private Members’ ballot and seeking
to advance it. We have already used more than 100 days
of Government time to pass an Act that, for the first
time in this country, gives our citizens a guarantee that
the next time the treaties are changed there will
automatically be a referendum. That should be sufficient
for anyone.
In the Queen’s Speech, the Government have also
sought an international environment in which we tackle
tax avoidance—a point made by my hon. Friend the
Member for Redcar. We have already taken significant
strides in this country, but we are working together to
support the development of an international tax

745 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
746
environment that is much tougher on tax avoidance,
and the Queen’s Speech recognises that. We are making
real progress. The Chancellor, through his work in
ECOFIN and in the G7, the G8 and the G20, supports
free trade and is tackling tax evasion by encouraging
greater transparency and accountability. Our efforts in
that area represent real progress in creating a fairer
international tax environment.
We are also creating a fairer society on UK shores.
The Queen’s Speech is packed with radical reforms, a
programme that in one year will deliver more long-term
changes to pensions, social care, our energy market and
employment for small businesses than Labour managed
in any Parliament while it was in office. The measures
set out in the Queen’s Speech this year will continue this
Government’s progress in rebuilding the United Kingdom
economy, clearing up the mess that Labour left. Those
measures will help us to build a stronger economy and a
fairer society, and they will help all of those who want
to get on in life. I commend them to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 329.
Division No. 2]
[6.59 pm
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
AYES
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Sir Tony
Curran, Margaret
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Galloway, George
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Long, Naomi
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O’Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan

747 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
748
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Weir, Mr Mike
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williamson, Chris
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Sir Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, rh Gregory
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackwood, Nicola
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
NOES
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Phil Wilson and
Nic Dakin
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox,rhDrLiam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, rh Damian
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lloyd, Stephen
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O’Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, David
Simpson, Mr Keith

749 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
750
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Anne Milton and
Mark Hunter
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: (b) at end add:
“but respectfully regret that an EU referendum bill was not
included in the Gracious Speech.”—(Mr Baron.)
The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 277.
Division No. 3]
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Steve
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Brady, Mr Graham
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Bruce, Fiona
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burrowes, Mr David
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Cooper, Rosie
AYES
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crouch, Tracey
Cryer, John
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Dorries, Nadine
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Engel, Natascha
Evans, Graham
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gale, Sir Roger
Galloway, George
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Gray, Mr James
Halfon, Robert
Hart, Simon
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hoey, Kate
[7.16 pm
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lumley, Karen
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Mills, Nigel
Morris, David
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Morris, James
Nokes, Caroline
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Patel, Priti
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Danny
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Baker, Norman
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
NOES
Raab, Mr Dominic
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Ruffley, Mr David
Selous, Andrew
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Smith, Henry
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stringer, Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr Andrew
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Wilson, Sammy
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr Peter Bone and
Mr Philip Hollobone
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brennan, Kevin
Brooke, Annette
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cable, rh Vince
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clwyd, rh Ann

751 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
752
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, rh Yvette
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Cruddas, Jon
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Sir Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
Davey, rh Mr Edward
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Farron, Tim
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
George, Andrew
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Harvey, Sir Nick
Healey, rh John
Heath, Mr David
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hood, Mr Jim
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, Tristram
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Khan, rh Sadiq
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lamb, Norman
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Laws, rh Mr David
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leech, Mr John
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lloyd, Stephen
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Long, Naomi
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Ian
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Moore, rh Michael
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)
Mudie, Mr George
Mulholland, Greg
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O’Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Pugh, John
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rogerson, Dan
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smith, Sir Robert
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swinson, Jo
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Ward, Mr David
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Webb, Steve
Weir, Mr Mike
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Wright, Simon
Tellers for the Noes:
Mark Hunter and
Sir Bob Russell
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: (e) at end add:
“but respectfully regret that a Government of Wales Bill implementing
the recommendations of the Commission on Devolution in Wales
was not included in the Gracious Speech”—(Mr Llwyd.)
The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 316.
Division No. 4]
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
AYES
[7.30 pm
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Caton, Martin

753 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
754
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Sir Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O’Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Sir Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, rh Gregory
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackwood, Nicola
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
NOES
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Weir, Mr Mike
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Stewart Hosie and
Pete Wishart
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan

755 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
756
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Field, Mark
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox,rhDrLiam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, rh Damian
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lloyd, Stephen
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O’Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Karen Bradley and
Mark Hunter
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 237.
Division No. 5]
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Sir Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
AYES
Barker, rh Gregory
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackwood, Nicola
[7.44 pm

757 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
758
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox,rhDrLiam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, rh Damian
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lloyd, Stephen
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Moore, rh Michael
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O’Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soubry, Anna
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Tomlinson, Justin
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon

759 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
760
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Sir Tony
Curran, Margaret
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
NOES
Tellers for the Ayes:
Anne Milton and
Mark Hunter
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O’Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Weir, Mr Mike
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Noes:
Phil Wilson and
Nic Dakin
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as
follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in
Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to
Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has
addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Address to be presented to Her Majesty by Members
of the House who are Privy Counsellors or Members of
Her Majesty’s Household.

761 15 MAY 2013
762
Business without Debate
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY
Ordered,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake
to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8
of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of Beechbrook
Capital as part of the Business Finance Partnership, sums exceeding
£10 million and up to a cumulative total of £20 million.—
(Mr Lansley.)
Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas
Anderson
[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, on
Dog Control and Welfare, HC 575, and the Government
response, Session 2012-13, HC 1092.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House
do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)
7.57 pm
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): Jade Lomas Anderson
was 14 on 9 March. On 26 March, she was savaged to
death by four dogs. Jade was a very popular girl. She
was full of life and loved to dance. The order of service
at her funeral told us that she was the world’s biggest
One Direction fan—Harry was her favourite. She entered
and left the church to their music. At her memorial
service and at her funeral, friends, family and teachers
were full of praise for her. Her head teacher said that
Jade was a lively girl who always had a smile on her face.
Her friends and family said that she was beautiful, kind
and a very good friend. She was the life and soul at
family parties and was always first on the dance floor.
She always had time to help and support other people.
Her Facebook status said she was “in a relationship”,
and her 13-year-old boyfriend Josh said that
“she was beautiful and wouldn’t hurt a fly”.
Jade had started at her new school only the previous
June. Having come from a very small school, she made
a tremendous effort to fit in and work hard at her
studies. The school was very pleased with her progress
and gave her a glowing end-of-term report. As a special
treat for doing so well, her parents gave Jade permission
to stay overnight at her friend’s house. It was a treat that
ended in tragedy when Jade returned to the house alone
and was savaged by four dogs.
The dogs were quickly shot by a police marksman but
Jade could not be saved. It is still too early to know all
the details of what happened that day, and indeed we
might never know all of them because Jade was alone at
the time of her death. I am certainly not going to
speculate in this speech about the potential findings of
her inquest. It is also too early to know for sure whether
the owner of the dogs can be prosecuted under 150-year-old
legislation, but it quickly became apparent that she will
not be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991,
because the dogs were not a banned breed and because
the attack took place on private property. It seems
absolute nonsense that one of the first acts the police
had to undertake was to test the dogs to see whether
their DNA contained traces of any banned breeds. We
should have legislation that reflects the deed of the dog,
not its breed.
The Government’s proposals to amend the law to
make dog attacks on private property prosecutable and
to extend the legislation to cover attacks on assistance
dogs are very welcome, but they simply do not go far
enough. The consultation on dangerous dogs, started
by the last Labour Government, closed in June 2010.
Since then, there have been calls from organisations and
charities, from Labour and from the Select Committee
on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to introduce
holistic legislation. Indeed, the Select Committee Chair,
the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh),
stated in February 2013:

763 Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas 15 MAY 2013 Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas 764
Anderson
Anderson
[Julie Hilling]
“DEFRA should introduce comprehensive legislation to
consolidate the fragmented rules relating to dog control and
welfare. New rules should give enforcement officers more effective
powers, including Dog Control Notices, to prevent dog-related
antisocial behaviour.”
Tinkering with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—cited
by many to be the worst piece of legislation ever
produced—is simply not good enough. There are around
210,000 dog attacks each year and more than 6,000
people are admitted to hospital—often with life-changing
injuries or terrible facial injuries, especially for children.
On average, 12 postal workers are attacked each day.
The NHS spends more than £3 million on treating the
victims of dog attacks; local authorities spend £57 million
on kennelling costs; and Jade Lomas Anderson was the
ninth person to be killed since 2006.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): In two separate
incidents in West Lancashire in the past two months, a
female adult and a four-year-old boy—he suffered nine
scars to his face—have been attacked by dogs. One
attack was in the street and the other on private property.
Neither the dog warden nor the police were able to take
any action over these incidents. Does my hon. Friend
agree that we need tougher measures immediately to
ensure that people of all ages are better protected, and
that agencies must have the necessary powers to enforce
that protection?
Julie Hilling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Since Jade’s death there have been thousands of further
attacks on people, including one on a child in Bolton
who had her eyelid ripped away and has terrible marks
under her eye. Fortunately, the dog missed the eye
altogether so her sight was saved. This is not an insignificant
problem. It is an issue that affects the quality of life of
millions of people and one that deserves the full attention
of the Government, who should provide legislation that
will really make a difference.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/
Co-op): My hon. Friend is making a strong and passionate
speech and paying a fitting tribute to Jade Lomas. My
thoughts are with her family and friends. My hon.
Friend will be aware that I recently witnessed a brutal
attack by a Staffordshire bull terrier in which a cat was
mauled to death in front of me and a man was injured—I
only narrowly escaped injury myself. The family involved
have been told that it would have been better if the dog
had been running free in the street, because then something
could have been done about it. That highlights again the
issue of attacks taking place on private property. Does
my hon. Friend agree that this simply has to change?
Julie Hilling: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has it absolutely
right. I welcome the fact that the Government are going
to extend the legislation to cover private property, but
that in itself is not enough, because preventive measures
are necessary, too.
Dog control notices would give the authorities the
power to intervene if concern has been raised about a
dog. They would be able to instruct the owner to take a
range of actions that could include keeping the dog
muzzled, keeping it on a lead or keeping it away from
children. The owner and dog could be made to undertake
training. I believe, although not everyone agrees with
me, that we should be able to order the owner to reduce
the number of dogs in a household if the home is not
suitable for the number and size of the dogs.
Dog control notices are supported by a wide range of
organisations, including the Kennel Club, the Dogs
Trust, the RSPCA, the Royal College of Nursing, the
British Veterinary Association, The Blue Cross, Battersea
Dogs and Cats Home and the Communication Workers
Union. They have already been introduced in Northern
Ireland and Scotland, and they should be introduced
across the UK. Their existence would provide a swift,
flexible and proportionate way to deal with irresponsible
dog owners. They would act as an early warning system
and action could be taken to promote responsible
ownership, rather than just prosecuting owners after a
tragedy has taken place.
I welcome the Government’s intention to extend the
legislation on out-of-control dogs to cover assistance
dogs, but I do not understand why they have not included
all protected animals. “Protected animals” are already
defined under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that
would deal with the increasing problem of attacks on
livestock as well as dealing with attacks on cats, which
can often be the first sign that a dog is dangerously out
of control. Why should not a responsible owner walking
a dog on a lead be protected by law from an attack by a
dangerous dog?
My constituent Ryan came to see me when his dog
was attacked in a park. He not only had to deal with the
trauma of the attack, but then had a huge vet’s bill to
pay. He did not need to describe the attacking dog to
the vet; the vet could tell him about the dog, because a
series of people had come to him with their injured
dogs. Another constituent, Beryl, came to see me after
her two cats were attacked by a dog in her own garden.
After much pressure, the police did take action, but it
would be so much easier if there were clear legislation.
Dog charities and local authorities are reporting an
increase in the number of abandoned dogs. Some are
abandoned because their owners can no longer afford
to look after them, others because their owners can no
longer control them. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home
told me that 41% of the dogs that came to its shelter last
year were what it calls “bull breeds”, and 32% of those
were Staffordshire bull terriers. The home has also seen
an increase in the number of Akitas—Japanese fighting
dogs—and Rottweilers. Like other charities, Battersea
finds it difficult to re-home such dogs. Indeed, it was
unable to re-home 28% of the dogs of all breeds that
came to it. It was keen to stress that it does not destroy
any dogs that can be re-homed, and places no time limit
on the length of stay. In fact, the longest stay was by a
Staffordshire bull terrier, who stayed for two years until
the charity found him a new home.
We do need to take action on the indiscriminate
breeding of puppies. The Blue Cross says that it would
like hobby breeders who are flooding an already saturated
market with puppies to be stopped. That could be done
by decreasing the number of litters a year that a person
is allowed before having to become a licensed breeder.
Many organisations think that the number should be
reduced to two a year; others, including the former chief
vet for the RSPCA, believe that anyone who breeds
dogs—even if by accident—should be registered. The

765 Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas 15 MAY 2013 Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas 766
Anderson
Anderson
Government are proposing the compulsory microchipping
of all dogs. Why can they not require a register of breeders
at the same time?
If microchipping is to be effective, there needs to be
an obligation for the dog’s owner to transfer ownership
officially. My local police tell me that they sometimes
take a dog back to the registered address, only to be told
that the owner gave it away some time ago. The old
slogan “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas” needs
to be brought to life by proper controls of ownership.
The issues of dog welfare and community safety cannot
be separated.
Replying to an intervention by me in a debate last
week, the Home Secretary told me that the Government
had not included dog control notices in their Bill because
they believed
“that the other powers and orders we are introducing under this
antisocial behaviour Bill will give sufficient power to the police to
be able to deal with dangerous dogs without needing to introduce
a separate—and yet another—notice.”—[Official Report, 9May
2013; Vol. 563, c. 170.]
I have to inform her that none of the experts agree with
her.
Dogs that are used as weapons may come to the
attention of the police, and the owners could become
subject to the new antisocial behaviour orders, but dogs
like those that killed Jade would never come to attention
in that way. The only complaint about those dogs
appears to have been a complaint about noise. If that
could have been investigated with dog control notices in
place, maybe—just maybe—action could have been taken;
or maybe the people who were scared to walk past the
garden would have felt it worthwhile to lodge a complaint
because something could have been done.
Jade’s was not the first case of dog attack to arise in
my constituency, and if the Government do not take
action, it will definitely not be the last. We need holistic
legislation to deal with both dog welfare and dangerous
dogs, because the two issues are inextricably linked. A
well-trained, well-socialised and well-looked-after dog
is far less likely to be involved in an attack. However, we
also need to educate people about both care and respect
for dogs. Even the most well-mannered dog may behave
differently around children.
Many owners have spoken to me in the past few
weeks, and have told me that they would never leave
their dog unattended with children. Why can we not
support the voluntary sector in its efforts to train children
and adults to care for dogs and take responsibility for
them? Why can we not encourage secondary schools to
make that part of personal, social, health and economic
education, and encourage primary schools to educate
their children about care for their pets? The current
proposals will not protect our children, and they will
not protect our communities from the blight of dangerous
dogs.
I would be the last person to suggest that if we had
had legislation in place, Jade would have been saved,
but one thing is sure: if we do not take comprehensive
action there will be more Jades, and more people’s lives
will be ruined by out-of-control dogs. Jade’s parents,
Michael and Shirley Anderson, are fighting for Justice
for Jade. They are determined to campaign to change
the law so that no other family has to suffer in the way
in which they are suffering. The Minister has the power
to listen to them, to the many hon. Members who have
raised the issue, and to the experts, and introduce
comprehensive legislation. Will he do so?
8.9 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath): I congratulate
the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) on
securing the debate and on speaking with genuine eloquence
and passion on behalf of her constituents. I salute her
for doing so. Nothing I can say or do will fill the void in
the lives of the family and friends of Jade Lomas
Anderson, but I do want to send my condolences to
them. The tragic circumstances of her death will, I
hope, not be repeated, but they ought to make every
Member mindful of whether we have the right legislation
in place and what we can do. Such tragic incidents serve
to remind us of the importance of responsible dog
ownership and the far-reaching consequences of
irresponsible dog ownership, which can affect all of us,
regardless of whether we own a dog. I hope that that
message will strike home.
The Government continue to take the matter of
dangerous dogs extremely seriously, and the hon. Lady
kindly set out some of the measures we have put in
place. The previous legislation was passed in haste and
was inadequate in many ways. It has been seen not to be
fit for purpose and we must close some of the loopholes
and gaps.
On 9 May, provisions amending the Dangerous Dogs
Act 1991 were introduced into the House with the First
Reading of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing
Bill. That follows the announcement on 6 February of
the intention to amend the 1991 Act. Our legislating in
this directed way, having taken the advice of many
people, makes it clear that the Government are serious
about tackling the issue of dangerous dogs and irresponsible
dog ownership.
The key element of the amendments addresses the
issue of dog attacks on people. Sadly, such incidents are
on the rise, and 15 people have died in this country as a
result of dog attacks since 2005. That is totally unacceptable.
To address that, and to toughen the laws in this area, we
are giving the police more powers to deal with attacks
that happen on private property—a specific lacuna in
the law—in order to protect the thousands of children,
postal workers, health visitors, social care workers and
others who are attacked each year. That has been widely
welcomed by key bodies such as the Association of
Chief Police Officers and the Royal Mail, which recognise
the danger to their employees. The message from the
Government is clear: owners must be responsible for
their dog at all times and in all places.
This Government recognise that there are many
responsible dog owners, and we support them. It is for
that reason that the clauses amending the 1991 Act
contain an explicit exemption from prosecution for
householders whose dog attacks a trespasser who is in,
or is entering, a home, whether or not the householder
is present. That reinforces the Government’s position
that it is right that householders should not be at risk of
prosecution for reasonable actions taken in self-defence
or in defence of property.
We have also made sure that irresponsible owners
have to face up to the consequences of their actions. Last
year, the Sentencing Council published new guidelines

767 Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas 15 MAY 2013 Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas 768
Anderson
Anderson
[Mr David Heath]
for judges and magistrates on sentencing for dangerous
dog offences, including increasing the recommended
sentencing range for an offence of allowing a dog to
be dangerously out of control and injuring someone
from six to 18 months’ imprisonment. According to the
Sentencing Council:
“The new guideline will mean more offenders will face jail
sentences, more will get community orders and fewer will receive
discharges.”
Those new guidelines came into effect in August 2012.
The change is too late for the hon. Lady’s constituents—I
recognise that—but it will ensure that any future cases
are treated as a criminal matter. In addition, there are
existing powers available to deal with any dog that is
dangerously out of control or being used to intimidate
people. Those powers have been and are being used, but
it is right to extend the protection to people in all places,
including their homes, so that owners know they will be
held accountable for the behaviour of their dogs, wherever
those dogs may be. We therefore look forward to the
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill moving
through the House and being properly debated before it
receives Royal Assent.
The Government consider that owning a dog is a
serious undertaking and should not be done lightly. We
are working closely with the animal welfare charities to
encourage people to take more responsibility for their
own actions and their pets. The hon. Lady made some
very sensible points about education, because a lot of
dog owners simply do not recognise what they should
be doing. Whether through ignorance, neglect or malice,
it is simply unacceptable for dogs to be kept in circumstances
in which they remain a danger to other people. That is
what we need to address.
Early intervention is vital in preventing poorly trained
or poorly socialised dogs escalating to serious and
ultimately dangerous attacks. As well as amending the
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Bill introduces six flexible
tools designed to be used by local enforcement agencies,
including the police and local authorities, to respond
effectively to individual and local situations that may or
may not involve dogs.
Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister his assurances,
particularly on increased police powers. One of the
challenges I discovered when I engaged with the police
over the incident I mentioned was that the police said
that even if they had they been able to go on to private
property to remove the dog, they had no facility in
which to house the dog afterwards. The incident happened
over an Easter weekend and no pounds were available—
there was no place to take the dog. What assurances can
he give about the facilities available to house dogs that
are causing such distress?
Mr Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes an important
point, and it is something we have been discussing with
ACPO, because it is essential that if we give powers to
the police, they can exercise them properly. A range of
sanctions will be available to the police to deal with
dogs. Some dogs, I am afraid, will have to be destroyed
straight away—that is the reality—and others will be
impounded, so it is important that there are facilities
available to keep those dogs safely until they can be
assessed or retrieved, as appropriate.
Returning to the proposals to amend the Dangerous
Dogs Act, we hope that they will provide a set of
flexible and effective tools and powers to enable the
police and local authorities to tackle a wide range of
antisocial behaviour, including dog-related incidents.
The amendments to the Act, bolstered by the new
antisocial behaviour measures, will provide the framework
for tackling irresponsible dog ownership, from low-level
incidents to more serious dog attacks. That will help to
encourage a more responsible approach. The focus should
also be on ensuring proper enforcement, which can only
be helped by engaging local communities, who understand
local problems and can report them, combined with
educating owners on responsible behaviour, as the hon.
Lady said.
Julie Hilling: If the Bill really does as the Minister
says and offers that holistic approach that could be
summed up with dog control notices, why are all experts
in the field saying that the Bill does not go far enough?
There is still real concern about not having the ability to
intervene early and the particular things that we can
instruct the owner to do, including having training for
both the dog and the owner. Without those, it is hard to
see how this will be a holistic, preventive measure,
because it is not enough. I appreciate that there will be
actions to take after the event, but we have to do things
to stop the problems in the first place.
Mr Heath: The hon. Lady is right. It is not good
enough to deal with problems after the event. We need a
preventive measure—an injunctive measure, which will
be provided by the antisocial behaviour provisions that
I am describing. She raises an important point, which I
hope my colleagues in the Home Office will have the
opportunity to discuss during the Bill’s passage through
the House. They are confident that the measures they
are introducing will have the desired effect. Obviously,
the hon. Lady is not quite persuaded of that view yet. I
hope we will have that debate and get the right solution.
It is unnecessary to devise new labels and new measures
that replicate the existing ones, so I hope the hon. Lady
she will approach the measures with an open mind and
listen to what my colleagues in the Home Office have to
say. If she is not persuaded, she will no doubt argue for
strengthening the Bill when it comes to the House, but I
hope she will be persuaded, as we believe that the
flexible approach adopted in the Bill provides a suite of
measures which can be used not just for dogs but for
other antisocial behaviour practices which need to be
addressed. That is not a subject for this debate but I
refer, for instance, to the flag racing of horses, which
I am very concerned about. I would like to see antisocial
behaviour measures which deal effectively with that.
Let us have that discussion in the context of the Bill. I
certainly hear the hon. Lady’s concerns; it would be
foolish not to, and I will take them back to colleagues.
Nevertheless, let us have the debate when we get to the
appropriate stage of the Bill.
Julie Hilling: I thank the Minister for giving way
again. To me, the crucial question is where intervention
can start. Many of these cases would never have reached
anything like antisocial behaviour. If we look at the
deaths and terrible injuries that have occurred, we find

769 Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas 15 MAY 2013 Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas 770
Anderson
Anderson
that many of them would never have passed any threshold
other than someone saying, “I’m a bit worried about
those dogs.” That stage is crucial.
There are other issues, such as the breeding of animals
and their welfare. There has long been a need for all
those aspects to be wrapped up in one Bill, but it feels as
though we are just dealing with little bits and we will
still have to come back and do more.
Mr Heath: I do not entirely agree that it is necessary
to have consolidated legislation in order to effect the
suite of measures that the hon. Lady is looking for.
There are many cases in criminal law where various
provisions dealing with similar issues are contained in
different legislation. Sometimes that has benefits. I agree
that it makes it slightly more difficult for the lawyer or
the police officer to find the necessary measure, but
provided they know that there is a measure on the
statute book, they can use it. This is fairly common in
criminal law. There has been a great profusion of criminal
justice legislation over the years, much of which deals
with overlapping issues.
I do not entirely accept the hon. Lady’s criticism. In a
perfect world we would have neat self-contained Bills
on every subject, dealing with the entire statutory
background to it. In reality, the House does not work
like that. Also, there are provisions with respect to dogs
and antisocial behaviour in common law as well as
statute law, so even if we had a single statute, it would
still not cover all the law that pertains. Nevertheless, I
hear what the hon. Lady says.
To continue what I was saying, it is very important
that we now work with practitioners, local authorities
and animal welfare charities to produce guidance that
clearly demonstrates how the new tools can be used to
cover all that dog control notices do and more, and to
take account of the needs of communities as well as dog
welfare. One of the measures echoes the comments of
the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen
Doughty). Local authorities will be required to provide
24-hour accommodation, but the police should also
have such a facility if they are doing their job properly.
We need to talk to them about that.
A number of commentators have asked who will
enforce the controls on dogs. The Government understand
the pressure on both the police and local authorities at
this time. The split that we see is that police will concentrate
their time on more serious criminal matters, which will
involve investigating dog attacks under the Dangerous
Dogs Act, and not spend time dealing with stray dogs.
That makes sense. Local authorities should be taking
decisions on local priorities for action and allocate their
resources accordingly. Some local authorities have been
very proactive and imaginative in providing local solutions
and approaches to dealing with dogs. For example, it is
a requirement of Wandsworth’s housing tenancy agreements
that any dogs on its properties are microchipped. That
means that there is a direct link between the dog and its
owner, which encourages more responsible behaviour
and reduces dog-related incidents.
The Dangerous Dogs Act prohibits four specific types
of fighting dog, and the hon. Lady mentioned the issues
relating to bull terriers—the pit bull terrier, Japanese
Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro. It has been
suggested that we should add to this list of prohibited
dogs. However, none of the key stakeholders, such as
the police or local authorities, consider it would be very
effective to add more types of dog to the prohibited list.
In fact some stakeholders want the list taken away
completely and for us to concentrate on what the dog
does, not on the breed of dog. Like the police, the
Government are not in favour of introducing new categories.
We take the view that both deed and breed are important.
The four types of prohibited dogs are fighting dogs—dogs
specifically bred for fighting—but the Act also recognises
that any dog has the potential to be dangerous if incorrectly
trained and left in the wrong hands, which is why there
are offences for any dog to be dangerously out of
control. It is why education for the public is so vitally
important, along with early intervention that will allow
the correct agencies, such as animal welfare organisations
or local authorities, to intervene and provide advice in
order to correct behaviour that could have a detrimental
effect on the safety and welfare of the dog.
In addition to the extension of criminal liability to all
places, the proposed amendments to the Dangerous
Dogs Act will include, for the first time, a specific
offence for a dog attack on an assistance dog. I am glad
that the hon. Lady welcomes that.
The Government believe that irresponsible dog ownership
is best targeted through a number of actions and initiatives.
The hon. Lady will know about the microchipping
initiative that we also have under way. We will debate
this many more times during the next few months. I
hope that we will get the right results this time, unlike
the last time the House legislated. I can only assure
her—and through her, her constituents—that we take
the issue of dangerous dogs extremely seriously. We
want to get the right answers and we are bending every
sinew to make sure that that is the case.
Question put and agreed to.
8.26 pm
House adjourned.

39WS
Written Ministerial Statements
15 MAY 2013
Written Ministerial Statements
40WS
Written Ministerial
Statements
Wednesday 15 May 2013
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS
EU Informal Competitiveness Council
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (Michael Fallon): I attended an Informal
Competitiveness Council (internal market and industry)
organised by the Irish presidency in Dublin on 2-3 May.
The Informal Council focused on “Innovative pathways
to jobs and growth” with a particular emphasis on the
needs of SMEs.
Before Council began, there was a meeting between
Ministers to discuss contracts for competitiveness and
growth. In a full round table, most Ministers expressed
caution about the introduction of contracts for
competitiveness and growth.
The Council itself began with a plenary session
introducing the theme “SMEs as a driver for European
growth”. Keynote speakers included Commissioner Tajani,
and a number of speakers from academia and business.
There was no debate in this session itself.
The plenary then broke into separate working groups.
I attended the session on access to finance, given we are
a leader in Europe on this issue. In this session, Minsters
agreed that the current model is close to being broken.
Governments, therefore, needed to consider how to get
banks lending; how far they can fill the gap in SME
funding; and support/encourage alternative forms of
finance such as crowd sourcing.
The consensus was that the EU should focus its
attentions on completing the financial reforms that are
already being discussed and looking again at structural
funds and how these can be directed to supporting
SMEs.
Concurrent workshops focused on “SME
internationalisation” and “Cities and regions as drivers
for economic growth”. There was no UK participation
in these workshops, but feedback from the groups was
as follows.
On cities and regions as drivers for economic growth,
Ministers noted that: clusters should build on things
that already exist (e.g. universities and traditional industry);
member states should aim for a bottom-up approach
that reflects the needs of particular regions; and clusters
can help SMEs internationalise and the EU should
consider cross-border clusters.
On SME internationalisation itself, Ministers emphasised
that EU measures should compliment but not duplicate
member state measures.
Specifically, the EU could focus on: promoting
entrepreneurship training; sharing best practice; ways
of making SMEs aware of support networks that are
available; Erasmus programmes focusing on key trade
partners; FTAs and special provisions for SMEs; better
framework conditions at the EU level (e.g. single market,
reducing regulation); and simplified regimes for microenterprises.
The Commission should continue with its missions
for growth as well as focus on clusters and encouraging
larger companies to work with SMEs. It should also
focus on markets that SMEs want to access and where
this is particularly difficult for them.
Jane Peters, (deputy director, international knowledge
and innovation unit, BIS), represented the UK on the
research day, 2 May.
The lunchtime discussion focused on the
recommendations put forward by the high-level group
on innovation policy management which had been set
up during the Polish presidency. There was general
support from participating delegations for the overarching
recommendation of the group that more was needed to
optimise the functioning of the European innovation
system through improved management and coherence
of the range of policy initiatives. The UK welcomed the
report and in particular the reference to making sure
policy makers and regulators understand how to use
science correctly in the development of regulation. We
did not, however, advocate a single, centralised authority
with responsibility for innovation policy across the EU.
The lunch was followed by a plenary in which three
keynote speakers addressed the topic of “How to optimise
the benefits of research investment for European jobs,
growth and society”. Breakout groups then discussed
aspects of this broad theme. The UK took part in the
workshop looking at “Ensuring the global competitiveness
of European industry, including through the development
and deployment of KETS (key enabling technologies)”.
The discussion was wide ranging. The UK relayed the
results of research undertaken in the UK which showed
that a key driver for industry to take part in EU
programmes was the development of pan-European
networks. A major disincentive included the bureaucracy
associated with the programmes. Other topics discussed
included the importance of providing industry with a
work force with the right skills.
TREASURY
UK Debt Management Office
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid):
The United Kingdom Debt Management Office (DMO)
has today published its business plan for the year 2013-14.
Copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both
Houses and are available on the DMO’s website,
www.dmo.gov.uk.

201W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
202W
Written Answers to
Questions
Wednesday 15 May 2013
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Acquittals
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General how
many judge-ordered acquittals there were in (a)
2012-13 and (b) each of the preceding 10 years.
[154663]
The Solicitor-General: the Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) maintains a central record of the number of
judge ordered acquittals reported in cases it has handled
for the last nine financial years. The number of recorded
cases is contained in the following table.
Judge ordered acquittals
2004-05 13,955
2005-06 12,663
2006-07 12,290
2007-08 12,509
2008-09 12,198
2009-10 12,930
2010-11 15,041
2011-12 12,670
2012-13 11,338
Buildings
John Mann: To ask the Attorney-General what the
total running costs were for each building used, owned
or rented in central London by the Law Officers’
Departments, their agencies and non-departmental
public bodies in each of the last three financial years.
[154234]
The Solicitor-General: The total running costs for
each building in central London used or rented by the
Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last three
financial years is as follows:
£
Building 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Rose Court, SE1 4,574,581 4,156,168 5,853,816
The Cooperage, SE1 1,607,265 1,896,631 1,685,557
Drummond Gate,
n/a n/a 2,555,012
SW1
Artillery Row, SW1 212,653 316,209 280,835
New Kings Beam
3,000,000 1,500,000 n/a
House, SE1
50 Ludgate Hill, EC4 1,262,484 n/a n/a
The Serious Fraud Office’s moved to new premises in
Cockspur Street in November 2012; prior to this it
leased Elm House in Elm Street and the ITN building at
200 Grays Inn Road.
These lease expired in December 2012. The total
running costs for these buildings was £4,807,183 in
2010-11, £4,353,583 in 2011-12 and £4,358,925 in 2012-13.
The total net running costs for each building rented
by TSol, HMCPSI and AGO in central London in the
last year financial years were as follows:
TSol:
One Kemble Street, London, WC2B
4TS. Floors 4-15
HMCPSI:
26-28 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H
9HP (until September 2011) (from April
2011) One Kemble Street, London,
WC2B 4TS
£
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
5,154,103 4,892,827 4,941,748
597,030 465,698 205,282
AGO:
20 Victoria Street, London SW1H ONF 1,076,539 775,582 777,293
A number of TSol staff are co-located in other
Government Buildings in central London where they
provide legal advice to Departments based there. The
running costs for these properties are not included in
this response.
Convictions
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General
what the conviction rate is for each regional division of
the Crown Prosecution Service for (a) all offences, (b)
offences against the person, (c) burglary, (d) drugs
offences and (e) fraud. [155169]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) maintains a central record of the outcomes of
cases according to the case’s principal offence category
(POC). The POC indicates the most serious offence
with which a defendant is charged at the time a case is
finalised. The conviction rates for the 2012-13 period
are as contained in the following table.
All
Cases
Offences
Against
the
Person
Burglary
Drugs
Offences
Percentage
Fraud
Cymru
87.7 78.7 87.1 95.3 85.6
Wales
Eastern 88.7 81.1 88.6 94.9 88.7
East
86.1 76.7 83.4 93.3 84.4
Midlands
London 80.5 66.3 76.2 92.7 81.6
Merseyside
and
Cheshire
87.9 77.4 88.1 92.9 87.4
North East 86.1 75.1 87.7 93.9 89.9
North West 87.3 77.2 87.9 94.0 87.6
South East 85.8 75.1 83.6 93.7 83.7
South West 86.8 77.6 88.1 94.5 . 88.8
Thames and 85.4 72.4 83.0 93.0 85.0
Chiltern
Wessex 84.4 74.9 85.4 94.4 88.6
West
86.4 75.8 85.4 94.1 86.2
Midlands
Yorkshire
and
Humberside
85.9 76.6 83.6 93.2 81.6

203W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
204W
Crown Prosecution Service
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney General what
proportion of advocacy conducted by barristers and
solicitors in each regional division of the Crown
Prosecution Service is provided (a) in-house and (b)
externally. [155168]
The Solicitor-General: In relation to Crown Court
and Higher Courts advocacy the Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS) maintains records of the proportion of
work undertaken by in-house and external advocates in
value terms, by reference to advocate fees payable in
accordance with CPS fee schemes. The national and
area positions for 2012-13 are detailed in the following
table.
2012-13—CPS Crown Court and Higher Courts Advocacy by value
Percentage
In-house advocacy
External advocacy
13 CPS areas 28 72
Cymru Wales 27 73
East of
35 65
England
East Midlands 22 78
London 19 81
Merseyside and
24 76
Cheshire
North East 33 67
North West 31 69
South East 31 69
South West 29 71
Thames and
32 68
Chiltern
Wessex 41 59
West Midlands 43 57
Yorkshire and
Humberside
30 70
In relation to magistrates courts advocacy the CPS
maintains records of the number and proportion of
half-day sessions conducted by in-house and external
advocates. The national and area positions for 2012-13
are detailed in the following table.
2012-13—CPS Magistrates Courts Sessions
Covered by
in-house
associate
prosecutors
Covered by
in-house
solicitors and
barristers
Percentage
Covered by
external
advocates
13 CPS areas 32 48 20
Cymru Wales 36 56 8
East of
32 53 16
England
East
29 38 33
Midlands
London 31 38 31
Merseyside
33 64 3
and Cheshire
North East 25 54 21
North West 34 53 13
South East 28’ 54 17
South West 24 44 32
Thames and
29 58 13
Chiltern
Wessex 32 64 4
West
Midlands
Yorkshire and
Humberside
2012-13—CPS Magistrates Courts Sessions
Covered by
in-house
associate
prosecutors
Covered by
in-house
solicitors and
barristers
Percentage
Covered by
external
advocates
33 53 14
45 29 26
The classification of in-house advocates includes associate
prosecutors, who are not solicitors or barristers but are
the equivalent of legal executives.
GPT
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General
what the current status is of the Serious Fraud Office’s
investigation into alleged bribery by GPT Special
Project Management Limited in Saudi Arabia; and if
he will make a statement. [155176]
The Solicitor-General: The Director of the Serious
Fraud Office and Attorney-General meet frequently to
discuss various cases in line with the Protocol between
the Attorney-General and the Prosecuting Departments.
It would not be appropriate to give a running commentary
on current investigations.
Prosecutions
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General how
many prosecutions were dropped in the Crown Court
because the court held that the charge should lie on the
file in (a) 2012-13 and (b) the preceding 10 years.
[154652]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service
holds figures for the number of its prosecutions (by
defendant) which were dropped after the consent of the
judge was given to leave an indictment or counts on the
file for the last nine financial years. Records are not held
centrally for earlier years and could be provided only at
a disproportionate cost.
Prosecutions with outcome—lie on
file
2004-05 698
2005-06 666
2006-07 626
2007-08 613
2008-09 610
2009-10 607
2010-11 648
2011-12 475
2012-13 422
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General how
many prosecutions were dropped in the Crown Court
because the indictment was stayed in (a) 2012-13 and
(b) the preceding 10 years. [154653]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) holds figures for the number of its prosecutions
(by defendant) which were dropped because the indictment
was stayed for the last seven financial years, which are
contained in the following table. Records are not held
centrally for earlier years and could be provided only at
a disproportionate cost.

205W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
206W
Prosecutions with outcome—
indictment stayed
2006-07 188
2007-08 215
2008-09 231
2009-10 255
2010-11 244
2011-12 222
2012-13 208
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General how
many prosecutions were discontinued in the
magistrates’ court because the summons was
withdrawn in (a) 2012-13 and (b) each of the
preceding 10 years. [154654]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) holds figures for the number of prosecutions (by
defendant) withdrawn in the magistrates court, for the
last nine financial years. This data includes prosecutions
commenced by both charging and by summons, which
cannot be disaggregated without incurring disproportionate
cost.
Prosecutions with outcome—
withdrawn (magistrates court)
2004-05 66,749
2005-06 48,568
2006-07 35,204
2007-08 29,292
2008-09 24,522
2009-10 22,857
2010-11 22,085
2011-12 20,274
2012-13 17,250
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General how
many cases were dropped on (a) evidential and (b)
public interest grounds in (i) 2012-13 and (ii) each of
the preceding 10 years. [154659]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) maintains a central record of the reasons for
dropping cases for the last nine financial years only.
Figures for earlier years could be provided only at a
disproportionate cost.
The number of CPS prosecutions (by defendant)
dropped for either evidential or public interest reasons
are outlined in the following table.
Dropped for evidential
reasons
Dropped for public interest
reasons
2004-05 59,770 26,767
2005-06 62,643 27,791
2006-07 56,818 26,162
2007-08 51,951 24,754
2008-09 47,814 20,063
2009-10 46,314 20,910
2010-11 48,682 21,707
2011-12 44,084 20,555
2012-13 38,413 18,207
Dropped cases include those where the CPS discontinue,
withdraw or offer no evidence; or where the prosecution
or indictment is stayed or charges are left to lie on file.
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General how
many prosecutions were dropped before the case was
served because upon review in the Crown Court it was
apparent that the trial could not proceed or there was a
lack of evidence in (a) 2012-13 and (b) each of the
preceding 10 years. [154660]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number
of Crown court cases it has handled which were dropped
before the case was served. Such data could not reasonably
be obtained locally or nationally other than by manual
exercise which would incur a disproportionate cost.
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General how
many trials were ineffective because of prosecution
error in (a) 2012-13 and (b) each of the preceding
10 years. [154664]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) maintains no central record of the proportion of
trials that were ineffective because of prosecution error.
Such data could not be reasonably obtained locally or
nationally other than by undertaking a manual exercise
of reviewing individual case files which would incur a
disproportionate cost.
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service do collect
data on the numbers of ineffective trials, however this
information does not identify the number of trials that
were ineffective because of prosecution error.
Public Service: Misconduct
Tracey Crouch: To ask the Attorney-General how
many people have been prosecuted for the offence of
conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office
since 2005. [154295]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number
of people prosecuted for the offence of conspiracy to
commit misconduct in a public office. Such data could
not reasonably be obtained locally or nationally other
than by a manual exercise which would incur a
disproportionate cost.
The CPS does maintain a central record of the number
of offences of misconduct in a public office contrary to
common law which reached a hearing in the magistrates
court.
Serious Fraud Office
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General for
which offences the Serious Fraud Office is named in
legislation as the lead prosecutor; and how many (a)
investigations and (b) prosecutions it has undertaken
for each of these offence categories in the last five
years. [154365]
The Solicitor-General: The Serious Fraud Office is
not named as the lead prosecutor in any legislation.

207W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
208W
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General how
many prosecutions the Serious Fraud Office carried
out in 2012-13, by category of offence; and what the
conviction rate was in that period. [154366]
The Attorney-General: The conviction rate for 2012-13
is 70%. 14 out of 20 defendants were convicted of at
least one charge. Information is not held by category of
offence.
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General
what recent assessment he has made of the
effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office’s evidence
storage systems. [154668]
The Attorney-General: The SFO uses an industry
standard digital storage system to store evidential material.
The current system was procured from a specialist
provider in 2009 as part of an IT transformation
programme. Digital technology is constantly evolving,
so of course the SFO keeps the performance and
effectiveness of the system under review to ensure it
serves its needs and is being used effectively. The system
is fully supported by the manufacturer through a robust
and comprehensive maintenance contract, and the SFO
has not experienced any service outages caused by the
system.
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General in
what way and for how long the Serious Fraud Office’s
(SFO) tender for representing the SFO in the
Tchenguiz damages claim was advertised; and how
many law firms submitted bids. [154867]
The Solicitor-General: On 31 January and 1 February,
the Tchenguiz brothers served their respective particulars
of claim on the SFO, in which they sought damages in
excess of £300 million. Given the very substantial amount
of tax-payers’ money sought, and bearing in mind that
the SFO had only four weeks to serve its defence, an
accelerated procurement exercise was required.
During the first week of February 2013, four City
firms were identified by the SFO as having relevant
commercial litigation experience and approached by
the SFO. Each firm was given the same overview of the
case and asked (i) whether it could act for the SFO, (ii)
whether it would want to act for the SFO and (iii) the
rates it would charge if appointed. Of the two firms that
were able and willing to represent the SFO, the firm that
offered the best value was appointed.
HOME DEPARTMENT
Afghanistan
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department if she will provide asylum for
Afghan translators used by British military forces in
Helmand province in Afghanistan when UK armed
forces are withdrawn from that country. [155266]
Mr Harper: Work is progressing on reviewing how to
make appropriate provision to support locally employed
civilians as we draw down our combat mission in
Afghanistan. We continue to recognise our clear
commitment to treat locally engaged staff fairly and
appropriately, and to take all reasonable steps to ensure
their safety and security beyond the term of their
employment with Her Majesty’s Government.
The UK does not accept asylum claims made from
abroad. But any asylum claim made in the UK will be
considered on its individual merits and protection offered
to those who are found to be at genuine risk of serious
harm in their country of origin.
Armed Conflict: Syria
Dr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what estimate she has made of the
number of UK citizens fighting against the Assad
regime in Syria. [154105]
Alistair Burt: I have been asked to reply on behalf of
the Department for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
We judge that Syria is now the number one destination
for jihadists anywhere in the world today. Violent extremist
groups are attracting a large number of foreign fighters
of all nationalities, including a substantial number of
UK citizens. We are unsure of the precise number
involved in fighting against the Assad regime. Our
objective in Syria is a diplomatic solution that leads to
an end to the violence and a Syrian-led political transition.
To help deliver that we are focussed on building the
credibility and capability of the moderate opposition to
boost their appeal and effectiveness relative to extremist
groups.
Asylum: Kuwait
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department how many Kuwaiti Bidoons have
claimed asylum in the UK in each of the last five years
for which records are available. [153904]
Mr Harper: The following table shows the number of
asylum applications-received from Kuwaiti Bidoons for
which records are available. Figures relate to main applicants
only.
Number of applications
2008 3
2009 43
2010 106
2011 1 179
2012 1 185
1
Provisional.
The data shown are a subset of the data published in
table as 01(Asylum data tables volume 1) of Immigration
Statistics. The latest release Immigration Statistics October-
December 2012 is available in the Library of the House
and from the GOV website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigrationstatistics-october-to-december-2012/immigration-statisticsoctober-to-december-2012
Prior to March 2009, applicants who were Kuwaiti
Bidoons would have generally been recorded as nationals
of “Kuwait” or as “Stateless” or another similar category
such as “Refugees” or “Unknown”.
Data for Q1 2013 will be available from 23 May 2013.

209W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
210W
Drugs: Misuse
John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what estimate she has made of the
current level of sales of legal highs and of recent trends
in such sales. [155312]
Mr Jeremy Browne: No estimate has been made of
levels and trends in overall sales of ’legal highs’ containing
new psychoactive substances (NPS) which are not controlled
under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in the UK.
However, the Government and our independent drug
experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs,
continue to monitor the emergence of NPS through
UK and EU drugs early warning systems. These include
the Home Office’s Forensic Early Warning System (FEWS)
which identifies and monitors the emergence of NPS
(controlled and non-controlled) in the UK. The first
annual report of the FEWS we published last year is
available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/98031/fews.pdf
Entry Clearances: Palestinians
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department how many Palestinians from (a)
Gaza and (b) the West Bank have applied to travel to
the UK for study or visits in each of the last three
years; and how many such applications were (i)
accepted and (ii) declined. [155274]
Mr Harper: A breakdown of Palestinian visa applicants
into those who are residents of Gaza or from the West
Bank (or elsewhere) is not available. The latest available
published statistics for applications for visas, their issue
and refusal for nationals of the Occupied Palestinian
Territories for the last three years appears in the following
table.
Entry clearance visas applied for, issued and refused to nationals of the Occupied
Palestinian Territories, 2010 to 2012
Applications Resolved Of which:
Issued Refused Lapsed
2010 Total 3,579 3,557 2,665 859 33
Of which:
Visitors n/a n/a 2,150 n/a n/a
Study
(including
student visitors
n/a n/a 319 n/a n/a
2011 Total 3,725 3,663 2,812 813 38
Of which:
Visitors n/a n/a 2,313 n/a n/a
Study
(including
student
visitors)
n/a n/a 338 n/a n/a
2012 Total 3,818 3,882 2,839 1,010 33
Of which:
Visitors n/a n/a 2,328 n/a n/a
Study
(including
student
visitors)
n/a n/a 323 n/a n/a
n/a = not available
Notes:
1. Figures include dependants
2. Country of Nationality recorded as ’Occupied Palestinian Territories’.
Source:
Immigration Statistics. October to December 2013. Table be.02.q, be.06.q.a
and be. 06.q.o
The latest Home Office immigration statistics on
entry clearance visas are published in the release
Immigration Statistics October-December 2012, which
is available from the Library of the House and on the
Department’s website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigrationstatistics-october-to-december-2012
G4S
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what the current level of
expenditure by her Department is on contracts with
G4S; and how much was spent by her Department on
contracts with G4S in each year since 2008. [154555]
James Brokenshire: For the last full financial year
(2012-13) the Home Department’s total expenditure on
contracts with G4S was £43,749,652.
The Home Department’s expenditure on contracts
with G4S since financial year 2007-08 is detailed in the
following table. The figure for 2013-14 is the expenditure
to date in the financial year.
Financial year Expenditure (£)
2007-08 165,811,278
2008-09 166,974,282
2009-10 94,400,939
2010-11 103,256,935
2011-12 43,429,504
2012-13 43,749,652
2013-14 5,605,310
Inflation
Mr Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department if she will list the purposes for
which her Department uses (a) the retail price index
measure of inflation, (b) the consumer price index
measure of inflation and (c) any alternative measure
of inflation. [154974]
James Brokenshire: The Home Department uses the
following inflation indexes for the following purposes:
(a) The retail price index (RPI) is used to calculate inflation
driven price increases in contracts including those for PFI, rent
and maintenance.
(b) The consumer price index (CPI) is used to calculate
inflation driven price increases in contracts, including those for
rent and maintenance. It is also used for Asylum subsistence
payments.
(c) Other alternative measures of inflation issued by the Office
of National Statistics can be used if RPI or CPI are not considered
appropriate.
Members: Correspondence
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department when she intends to reply to the
letter to the Minister for Immigration dated 3 April
2013 from the right hon. Member for Manchester,
Gorton with regard to Mr George Martin McCarthy.
[154477]
Mr Harper: I wrote to the right hon. Member on
13 May 2013.

211W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
212W
Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department when she intends to reply to the
correspondence from the hon. Member for Harrow
West dated 4 March and 15 April 2013 to the UK
Border Agency regarding Mr Vishal Patel of Harrow.
[155308]
Mr Harper: A Home Office senior manager wrote to
the hon. Member on 13 May 2013.
Pay
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what guidance her Department
issues on the actions that would result in the
suspension or removal of a bonus payment to an
official in her Department; what the process is for
clawing back such bonuses; and on how many
occasions this has happened in each of the last five
years. [155000]
James Brokenshire: The Home Office’s Misconduct
policy allows, in exceptional circumstances, for other
penalties to be imposed as an alternative to dismissal or
in addition to a final warning. This would include the
ability to remove a bonus payment if appropriate.
A bonus payment would be deducted at source from
the individual’s salary. Should the individual have left
the Department a repayment plan would be put in
place.
There have been no recorded instances within the last
five years.
Police: Recruitment
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what recent changes have been
introduced in relation to the recruitment of police
officers; and what assessment she plans to make of
recruitment levels of officers from (a) black and
minority ethnic communities and (b) deprived
communities. [154862]
Damian Green: The Government wants to attract the
best people to careers in policing to ensure forces are
best able to fight crime and keep communities safe.
Following the recommendations of the Independent
Review of Police Terms and Conditions led by Tom
Winsor, the Government will introduce new recruitment
criteria for officers at constable rank to include relevant
policing experience and knowledge of policing or a
level 3 qualification. We are also introducing direct
entry at senior ranks of the police to open up the police
and improve leadership.
We believe a workforce that is more representative of
the communities it serves is a vital element in building
trust and confidence in policing. We do not collect data
specifically on recruitment from deprived communities.
We do collect and publish data on Black and Minority
Ethnic representation in the police workforce, which
shows that the police have made good progress, but
there is much further to go if forces are to reflect better
the communities they serve. We will continue to work
with forces, the College of Policing and other partners
to ensure police has a diverse and high-quality workforce.
Police: Road Traffic Control
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department how many road traffic officers have
been employed in each of the last five years. [155531]
Damian Green: The latest available figures show the
number of police officers within the traffic policing
function in England and Wales, 2007-08 to 2011-12
(full-time equivalent), and are provided within the following
table.
Number of police officers within the traffic policing function in England and
Wales, 2007-08 to 2011-12 1,2,3
Police Officers
2007-08 6,299
2008-09 5,714
2009-10 5,634
2010-11 5,316
2011-12 4,868
1
Staff with multiple responsibilities (or designations) are recorded under their
primary role or function. The deployment of police officers is an operational
matter for individual Chief Constables.
2
This table contains full-time equivalent figures that have been rounded to the
nearest whole number.
3
Traffic function includes staff who are predominantly employed on motor-cycles
or in patrol vehicles for the policing of traffic and motorway related duties. This
includes officers employed in accident investigation, vehicle examination and
radar duties. Also includes staff who are predominantly employed to support
the traffic function of the force including radar, accident investigation, vehicle
examination and traffic administration. Includes those officers working with
hazardous chemicals, and those administrative staff predominantly serving the
internal needs of the traffic function of the force and those officers/staff in
supporting roles.
Scotland
Margaret Curran: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department what (a) her Department and
(b) its non-departmental public bodies procured from
companies based in Scotland of a value in excess of
£25,000 since May 2010; and what the cost to the
public purse was of each such procurement contract.
[155685]
James Brokenshire: This information is not readily
available and could be obtained only at disproportionate
cost.
UK Border Agency: Scotland
Pamela Nash: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department how many UK Border Agency staff
in Scotland have been re-employed by that Agency
having previously been made redundant in each of the
last 3 years. [154788]
Mr Harper: There have been no staff re-employed by
the Home Office, formerly the UK Border Agency, that
were previously made redundant in any of the last three
years.
WALES
Energy
Karl McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for
Wales what recent assessment he has made of the
potential contribution of Wales to the UK’s national
energy infrastructure. [153886]
Stephen Crabb: Wales already makes a significant
contribution to the UK’s energy infrastructure but we
have the potential to achieve even more. Hitachi’s investment

213W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
214W
in new nuclear at Wylfa highlights the attractiveness of
Wales as a place to do business and invest, and will
make a significant contribution to meeting the country’s
energy demands.
JUSTICE
Coroners: Teesside
Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for
Justice whether the review by the Office for Judicial
Complaints of the performance of the Teesside
Coroner has been completed; and when the findings of
that review will be made public. [154673]
Mrs Grant: The Office for Judicial Complaints is
investigating the conduct of Her Majesty’s Coroner for
Teesside and will report to the Lord Chancellor, and the
Lord Chief Justice once it has completed the prescribed
procedures as required by the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed
Procedures) Regulations 2006 (as amended).
Crime: Victims
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what the respective roles are of a victim’s commissioner
and a police and crime commissioner in relation to
victims. [154962]
Mrs Grant: The Victims’ Commissioner and Police
and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) perform quite separate
functions in relation to victims.
The role of the Victims’ Commissioner is to ensure
the voice of victims and witnesses are heard at the heart
of Government, making sure their needs in relation to
the whole criminal justice system are represented. The
Commissioner will also keep under review the operation
of the statutory Victims’ Code and its use by Criminal
Justice Agencies. The Victims’ Commissioner has no
powers to award grants and has no commissioning
powers.
Police and Crime Commissioners have a duty to
consult with victims on issues of policing providing
victims of crime with a voice at a local level. PCCs will
also be responsible for the commissioning of the majority
of victims support services at a local level from 2014.
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what steps his Department has taken to provide
assistance with emotional, legal and practical problems
to victims’ families who were bereaved before the
implementation of the Victim Support National
Homicide Service in November 2010. [154963]
Mrs Grant: The Victim Support National Homicide
Service began operating in April 2010. Several specialist
organisations provide vital and expert support to those
bereaved by homicide prior to the implementation of
the Homicide Service. The following organisations have
received funding from the Ministry of Justice:
£
Financial year (1 March to 30 April)
Organisation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Support After
Murder and
Manslaughter
(SAMM)
140,000 — — —
£
Financial year (1 March to 30 April)
Organisation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
ASSIST Trauma
— 95,000 60,000 60,000
Care
Winston’s Wish — — 20,000 20,000
Cruse
Bereavement Care
— — 20,000 20,000
The Ministry of Justice is also providing £250,000 in
grant funding during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 financial
years to 13 organisations that provide peer support to
those bereaved by homicide. Following the report into
homicide of the previous Victims’ Commissioner, Louise
Casey, the Government extended the provision for trauma
and bereavement support for homicide victims. This
enables the Government-funded peer support
organisations—in addition to other services they
provide—to refer clients who were bereaved prior to
April 2010 for specialist trauma and bereavement support
to the three organisations currently receiving grants
that are shown in the table above.
Enfield
Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
how much funding (a) his Department and (b) each of
the non-departmental public bodies for which he is
responsible has allocated to the London borough of
Enfield local authority in each of the last five years.
[154519]
Jeremy Wright: The Department does not record
data at the level that has been requested.
Magistrates Courts: Nottinghamshire
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what plans he has for the future of (a) Worksop and
(b) Mansfield Magistrates’ Court. [154186]
Mrs Grant: HMCTS continues to keep the use of its
estate under review to ensure it meets operational
requirements.
Work Capability Assessment: Appeals
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for
Justice what assessment he has made of the cost to his
Department of appeals against the work capability
assessment in 2012-13. [153946]
Mrs Grant: HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)
hears appeals against Department for Work and Pensions
decisions on entitlement to employment and support
allowance (ESA) (decisions in which the work capability
assessment is a key factor) rather than appeals against
work capability assessment decisions themselves.
The estimated total cost of the 163,250 ESA appeals
in which the work capability assessment was a factor
disposed of during the period April to December 2012
(the latest period for which data has been published) is
£37 million.
These estimated costs were calculated by multiplying
the average cost of an individual First-tier Tribunal—Social
Security and Child Support case in 2011-12 (the latest

215W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
216W
period for which this data is available) by the number of
ESA appeals disposed of, in which the work capability
assessment was a factor.
The average cost of an appeal in 2011-12 was £228.
This is a reduction from £239 in 2010-11 and £293 in
2009-10. Since 2009-10, the average cost of an appeal
has reduced by 22%. HMCTS constantly reviews and
looks continuously to improve its administrative processes
in order to continue to drive down the costs of SSCS
appeals.
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for
Justice what assessment he has made of the proportion
of people who successfully appealed against a work
capability assessment decision in (a) the UK, (b)
Scotland and (c) South Lanarkshire in 2012-13.
[153947]
Mrs Grant: HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)
hears appeals against Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP) decisions on entitlement to employment and
support allowance (ESA) (decisions in which the work
capability assessment is a key factor) rather than appeals
against work capability assessment decisions themselves.
The SSCS Tribunal covers Great Britain but not
Northern Ireland, which has its own Appeals Service.
The tribunal venue in Hamilton serves appellants living
in South Lanarkshire as well as other nearby locations.
A combination of reasons can lead to a decision
being overturned on appeal. For example a hearing may
generate additional evidence, in particular oral evidence
provided by the appellant at the hearing.
HMCTS and DWP are working closely together to
improve the process for decision making and appeals.
HMCTS introduced a revised decision notice in July
2012 to provide feedback on reasons for overturned
DWP decisions. From April 2013 DWP introduced
mandatory reconsideration for universal credit and personal
independence payment, which will be extended to all
other DWP administered benefits and child maintenance
cases from October 2013.
The mandatory reconsideration process results in a
linear, escalating process for claimants wishing to dispute
decisions. The decision maker will contact the claimant
to provide an explanation of the decision under dispute
and encourage the claimant to provide any additional
information or evidence that may change the decision.
This will ensure DWP has an opportunity to resolve
disputes at an early stage.
The following tables show the number and proportion
of ESA appeals, where work capability assessment was
a factor, separated into those in which the tribunal
found in favour of the appellant, and those in favour of
the DWP, between April to December 2012 (the latest
period for which information is available) in (a) Great
Britain, (b) Scotland, and (c) Hamilton tribunal venue.
Employment and support allowance appeals—Great Britain
April to December 2012
Cleared at hearing 1 140,195
Decisions in favour of the
appellant:
Number 59,493
Percentage 42
Decisions in favour of DWP:
Employment and support allowance appeals—Great Britain
April to December 2012
Number 80,305
Percentage 57
Employment and support allowance appeals—Scotland
April to December 2012
Cleared at hearing 1 19,375
Decisions in favour of the
appellant:
Number 8,918
Percentage 46
Decisions in favour of DWP:
Number 10,357
Percentage 53
Employment and support allowance appeals—Hamilton tribunal venue
April to December 2012
Cleared at hearing 1 2,295
Decisions in favour of the
appellant:
Number 968
Percentage 42
Decisions in favour of DWP:
Number 1,322
Percentage 58
1
These are cases that were disposed of at a hearing. The total number of cases
cleared at hearing includes some cases that were withdrawn and on which no
decision was made. These figures therefore are not the sum total of decisions
in favour and decisions upheld.
Note:
Data are taken from management information.
SCOTLAND
Buildings
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for
Scotland what the total running costs were for each
building used, owned or rented in central London by
his Department in each of the last three financial years.
[154236]
David Mundell: The Scotland Office has one building
in central London, Dover House. The total cost of
running Dover House, the Scotland Office headquarters
in Whitehall, over the last three financial years is shown
in the following table:
2010-11 477,215
2011-12 507,410
2012-13 514,693
G4S
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for
Scotland what the current level of expenditure by his
Department is on contracts with G4S; and how much
was spent by his Department on contracts with G4S in
each year since 2008. [154559]
David Mundell: The Scotland Office has a contract
with G4S to provide 24 hour security at its Edinburgh
office in Melville Crescent. The total cost since 2008 is
shown in the following table:
£

217W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
218W
Financial year Expenditure (£)
2007-08 90,327
2008-09 88,669
2009-10 76,986
2010-11 90,998
2011-12 87,888
2012-13 92,940
Housing Benefit
Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for
Scotland how many bilateral meetings (a) he and (b)
Ministers in his Department have had with the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or other
Ministers in that department to discuss the effects of
the introduction of size-criteria for the housing benefit
of people renting in the social rented sector since
1 June 2010. [154631]
David Mundell: The Secretary of State for Scotland,
the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and
Selkirk (Michael Moore), and I are in regular contact
with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford
Green (Mr Duncan Smith), and other Ministers in that
Department on a range of issues relating to welfare
reform in Scotland, including the introduction of size
criteria for accommodation in the social rented sector.
In addition, I have recently met representatives from all
of Scotland’s local authorities, the Convention of Scottish
Local Authorities and a range of housing associations
to discuss how these organisations are responding to
the incoming changes.
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for
Scotland what steps his Department is taking to
implement the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
in its procurement procedures. [154539]
David Mundell: Other than minor or bespoke purchases,
the Scotland Office does not undertake direct procurement
or tendering projects. It utilises existing framework
contracts between suppliers and the Scottish Government
or the Ministry of Justice.
Publications
Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for
Scotland how much his Department spent on
subscriptions to academic journals published by (a)
Reed-Elsevier, (b) Wiley-Blackwell, (c) Springer and
(d) any other academic publisher in each of the last
five years. [154501]
David Mundell: The Scotland Office has not subscribed
to any academic journals published by (a) Reed-Elsevier,
(b) Wiley-Blackwell, (c) Springer, and (d) any other
academic publishers in any of the last five years. From
time to time the Office has purchased individual academic
publications but it has not subscribed to any academic
journals.
Welfare State: Reform
Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for
Scotland how many bilateral meetings (a) he and (b)
Ministers in his Department have had with the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or other
Ministers in that department to discuss the effects of
welfare reform in Scotland since 1 June 2010. [154630]
David Mundell: The Secretary of State for Scotland,
the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and
Selkirk (Michael Moore), and I are in regular contact
with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford
Green (Mr Duncan Smith), and other Ministers in that
Department on a range of issues relating to welfare
reform in Scotland.
NORTHERN IRELAND
Buildings
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland what the total running costs were for
each building used, owned or rented in central London
by her Department and its non-departmental public
bodies in each of the last three financial years. [154237]
Mike Penning: My Department rents office space in
one building in central London. The total running costs
for each of the last three financial years were as follows:
2010-11 1,357,491
2011-12 1,453,667
2012-13 1,574,178
On 25 February 2013, the London office relocated to
new accommodation at 1 Horse Guards Road. This
move has enabled the Department to secure significant
efficiency savings of just under £1 million per annum.
My Department has two non-departmental public
bodies—the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
and the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland; and
one advisory non-departmental public body—the Boundary
Commission for Northern Ireland. None of these bodies
has premises in central London.
G4S
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland what the current level of expenditure
by her Department is on contracts with G4S; and how
much was spent by her Department on contracts with
G4S in each year since 2008. [154558]
Mike Penning: Following the devolution of policing
and justice functions on 12 April 2010, and subsequent
reconfiguration of the Northern Ireland Office, my
department does not hold figures for the periods prior
to 2010; attempting to obtain this information would
incur disproportionate cost
My Department avails of a Department of Finance
and Personnel NI contract with G4S for the provision
£

219W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
220W
of security guard services at its two sites in Northern
Ireland. The levels of spending on this service since
2010 are as follows:
2010-11 97,140
2011-12 55,252
2012-13 91,675
Inflation
Mr Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland if she will list the purposes for which
her Department uses (a) the retail price index measure
of inflation, (b) the consumer price index measure of
inflation and (c) any alternative measure of inflation.
[154971]
Mrs Villiers: My Department does not use either the
retail price index or the consumer price index for any
purpose.
In order to meet Government accounting requirements,
my Department uses a combination of the Office for
National Statistics Tax and Price Index and specific
indices for specialised buildings and land supplied by
Land and Property Services, Department of Finance
and Personnel NI.
Northern Ireland Prison Service
Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland with reference to the contribution of
the Minister of State for the Northern Ireland Office of
21 November 2012, Official Report, column 637, what
progress she has made on holding a round-table
discussion with all interested people on a prison service
memorial garden. [154223]
Mrs Villiers: As the hon. Lady will be aware this is a
devolved matter. However, it is an issue in which the
Minister of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend
the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning),
takes a keen interest. He has discussed the issue with the
Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Executive
and will continue to do so.
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland what steps her Department is taking
to implement the Public Services (Social Value)
Act 2012 in its procurement procedures; and what
guidance she has given to her Department’s nondepartmental
public bodies on implementation of that
Act. [154537]
Mike Penning: My Department and its sponsored
bodies follow guidance from Cabinet Office and/or the
Department of Finance and Personnel (NI) in
implementing the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
in its procurement procedures. Advice and guidance on
all procurement is provided directly to my Department’s
sponsored bodies by the Department of Finance and
Personnel’s Central Procurement Directorate.
£
Publications
Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland how much her Department spent on
subscriptions to academic journals published by (a)
Reed-Elsevier, (b) Wiley-Blackwell, (c) Springer and
(d) any other academic publisher in each of the last
five years. [154500]
Mike Penning: Following the devolution of policing
and justice functions on 12 April 2010, my Department
does not hold figures for the periods prior to 2010;
attempting to obtain this information would incur
disproportionate cost.
From April 2010, my Department has not incurred
any spend on subscriptions to academic journals by any
academic publisher.
DEFENCE
Afghanistan
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what his Department’s procedures for
investigating alleged civilian deaths following
unmanned aerial vehicle strikes in Afghanistan are;
and if he will make a statement. [155023]
Mr Robathan: There are strict procedures, frequently
updated in light of experience, intended to both minimise
the risk of casualties occurring and to investigate any
incidents that do happen. Any occasion on which a
precision-guided weapon is released by an aircraft, whether
manned or remotely piloted, is reviewed and where
appropriate further investigations are initiated, including
all instances in which a possible civilian casualty is
reported.
Aircraft Carriers
Mr Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what plans he has for the future basing of the
Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier when overseas.
[155135]
Mr Robathan: There is no intention to base Queen
Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers overseas; the base port
for the Class is Her Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth.
Falkland Islands: Rescue Services
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence whether the User Requirements Document
being written by the current Falkland Islands support
helicopter supplier service users and service personnel
to inform the role of Defence in search and rescue has
been completed. [154670]
Mr Dunne: The Ministry of Defence continues to
develop plans on the future provision of search and
rescue helicopter capability in the Falkland Islands
from 2016 onwards.
Kenya
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what discussions his Department has had with
the Kenyan government in relation to the operation of
UK unmanned aerial vehicles within its territory.
[155037]

221W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
222W
Mr Robathan: The British Army Training Unit Kenya
uses hand launched, unarmed, tactical unmanned aerial
vehicles (such as the Desert Hawk III) for the purpose
of training ground units. Manned aircraft are also used
to simulate the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
effects of larger UAVs.
This has been agreed with both the Kenyan Ministry
of Defence and the Kenyan Civil Aviation Authority.
Individual flights are notified to the Kenyan authorities.
Unmanned Air Vehicles
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the answer of 24 April 2013,
Official Report, columns 905-6W, on unmanned aerial
vehicles, what the reason was for the time taken to
reveal the information contained in that answer.
[154571]
Mr Robathan: As my answer was a correction to the
Official Report, the information needed to be retrieved,
collated and verified to ensure it was accurate and
reflected the data held.
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence if he has any plans to review his policy on
what information relating to unmanned aerial vehicles
is held centrally. [154574]
Mr Robathan: No.
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence whether unmanned aerial vehicles have ever
been flown by a team made up of both British and US
forces. [154575]
Mr Robathan: UK personnel, embedded at Creech
Air Force Base, have flown US RPAS in support of
operations in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. In addition,
UK Reaper are launched and recovered in Afghanistan
by a joint UK/US team based at Kandahar Air Base.
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what his policy is on accountability of US
unmanned aerial vehicles flown by UK personnel.
[154576]
Mr Robathan: UK aircrew operating US Remotely
Piloted Aircraft in Afghanistan come under the operational
control of the NATO International Security and Assistance
Force and in doing so operate in accordance with
International Humanitarian Law also known as the
Law of Armed Conflict and operate in accordance with
UK Rules of Engagement at all times.
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what recent discussions he has had with his
counterparts in the US about (a) armed unmanned
aerial vehicle use in Pakistan and (b) the sharing of
unmanned aerial vehicles between the UK and US.
[154582]
Mr Robathan: The Secretary of State for Defence, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and
Weybridge (Mr Hammond), Ministers and officials
regularly meet their US counterparts to discuss defence
related topics. There have been no discussions on the
use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in Pakistan,
as the UK only operates its systems in support of UK
and ISAF ground forces in Afghanistan. The use of
UAS in Pakistan is a matter for the states involved.
UK and US Air Force aircrew in Afghanistan regularly
discuss the use of UK and USAF Remotely Piloted Air
Systems (RPAS) as part of joint RPAS launch and
recovery operations in Kandahar. The UK also has an
arrangement in place that enables it to make use of a
USAF airframe in the event of UK airframe not being
available.
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence if he will hold discussions with his Pakistani
counterparts on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in
that country. [154583]
Mr Robathan: The UK only operates its Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS) in support of UK and ISAF
ground forces in Afghanistan. The use of UAS in Pakistan
is a matter for the states involved, and is therefore not a
matter that the Secretary of State for Defence, my right
hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge
(Mr Hammond), intends to discuss with his Pakistani
counterpart.
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence if he will place in the Library a map indicating
those areas within the UK where his Department may
operate unmanned aerial vehicles. [155038]
Mr Robathan: I will place in the Library of the House
a map of the current Ministry of Defence (MOD)
reserved airspace areas within the UK where Remotely
Piloted Air Systems (RPAS) may be operated. MOD
reserved airspace areas, which are subject to future
changes as new operating practices and platforms come
into service, can be used either for specific periods by
RPAS as detailed in the UK Aeronautical Information
Publication or by activation of a Notice to Airman
(NOTAM).
Unmanned Air Vehicles: Guided Weapons
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence (1) when the testing of the Brimstone missile
for use on the MQ-9 Reaper Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
will begin; [154737]
(2) what estimate he has made of how much will be
paid to the US Air Force’s Big Safari programme to
test the Brimstone missile. [154738]
Mr Dunne: We are currently working with the US Air
Force’s Big Safari Group to establish and agree the
details of the test requirements and expect trials to
proceed in the autumn. I am withholding information
on cost estimates as their disclosure would prejudice
commercial interests.
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
Festivals and Special Occasions
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport what recent estimates she
has made of the effect of small festivals with fewer than
5,000 attendees on the (a) national and (b) local
economy. [154898]

223W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
224W
Mr Vaizey: The Arts Council England recently published
an independent report by the Centre for Economics and
Business Research that showed arts and culture provided
£5.9 billion of gross value added in 2011. We also know
that Music and Visual and Performing Arts, contributed
over £4 billion in GVA terms to the UK economy in
2009, exporting £286 million in 2009 and employing
293,000 in 2010. The artistic and cultural sectors, including
small festivals, remain a vital contributor to wealth
generation, tourism and increasing the country’s reputation
domestically and internationally for trade and visitors.
The Government continues to examine the contribution
that this sector makes.
Gambling
Mr David Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department
has taken to ensure that there is adequate research on
the extent of problem gambling to inform policymaking.
[155172]
Hugh Robertson: Following a Gambling Commission
review and public consultation, the Health Surveys for
England and Scotland have been used to gather prevalence
data using identical problem gambling questions to
those used in previous British Gambling Prevalence
Surveys. The surveys are due to be published later this
year and the results will be used to inform policy
making and monitor any changes to problem gambling
rates. Separately, the Responsible Gambling Trust is
conducting research into all category B gaming machines
to better understand how people behave when playing
these machines and what helps people to stay in control
and play responsibly.
Gambling: Internet
Mr David Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport what estimate her
Department has made of the size of the black market
in online gambling (a) hosted in the UK and (b) used
by UK consumers. [155171]
Hugh Robertson: Unregulated online gambling is by
its nature difficult to quantify. We, therefore, do not
have a reliable estimate of unlicensed online gambling
activity hosted in the UK or used by UK customers.
Members: Correspondence
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport when she intends to reply to
the letter to her dated 20 March 2013 from the right
hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to
Mr O. Wahid. [154485]
Hugh Robertson: A reply was sent on 13 May. I
apologise for the delay.
Public Libraries: Electronic Publishing
Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport with reference to the
recommendations of the Independent Review of
E-lending in Public Libraries in England, published in
March 2013, when lending rights will be extended to
(a) e-books and audiobooks lent on library premises
and (b) e-books lent remotely. [154886]
Mr Vaizey [holding answer 15 May 2013]: The
Government response to William Sieghart’s review of
e-lending in public libraries in England was published
on 27 March 2013 and sets out the Government’s
position in terms of extending public lending right
(PLR) to audiobooks and ebooks:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-independentreview-of-e-lending-in-public-libraries-in-england
Any proposal for the potential extension of PLR will
be communicated in due course, following full consideration
of this matter.
Theatre
Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport if she will take steps to prevent the
closure of local theatres as a result of local authority
spending reductions. [154890]
Mr Vaizey [holding answer sent 14 May 2013]: Decisions
on funding for the arts in this country are made at arm’s
length of Government by Arts Council England (ACE).
ACE works closely with local authorities to share and
discuss priorities, but this Government firmly believes
that it is for local authorities to determine, in consultation
with their communities, their priorities for spending.
ACE funds 179 theatre organisations through Grant
in Aid funding, including the Civic in Barnsley, and also
invests lottery funding in the theatre sector: Catalyst
funding, which helps arts organisations increase their
fundraising capacity, has been awarded to 49 theatre
organisations; a strategic touring fund of £15 million
per year from 2012, has, in its first year, supported
17 theatre touring projects; and five of ACE’s 17 digital
R and D fund awards have been made to theatre projects.
WiFi: Non-domestic Rates
Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport with reference to the answer
of 17 April 2013, Official Report, columns 416-7W, on
non-domestic rates: wi-fi, what outcomes there were
from the meeting hosted by the Broadband
Stakeholder Group between the Valuation Office
Agency and industry. [154006]
Mr Vaizey [holding answer 13 May 2013]: The
Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG) hosted a meeting
between the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) and industry
on 22 April on the subject of the non-domestic rating
regime and wireless broadband infrastructure. VOA
wilt be writing to interested parties and asked BSG and
industry to provide evidence to help establish rental
values for the rating process. The assessment of nondomestic
rateable values is a matter for the VOA in
which Ministers do not intervene.
TRANSPORT
Buildings
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what the total running costs were for each
building used, owned or rented in central London by
his Department, its agencies and non-departmental
public bodies in each of the last three financial years.
[154245]

225W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
226W
Norman Baker: The requested information is not
centrally recorded in the format requested and this
could only be obtained at disproportionate costs.
However, the Department does publish information
on the running costs of certain occupied administrative
offices as part of the annual Cabinet Office Property
Benchmarking programme. Further information is available
on the Data.Gov website:
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/epims
Bus Services: Concessions
Mr Robin Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what the (a) overall and (b) unit cost is of
providing free bus travel to pensioners in (i) Worcester,
(ii) Worcestershire and (iii) England. [154431]
Norman Baker: The Department for Transport carries
out surveys of Travel Concession Authorities (TCAs)
each year. The available information for reimbursement
made to bus operators for concessionary travel for older
and disabled people in 2011/12 is shown in the table
below:
Total cost (£ million)
Unit reimbursement cost
per journey (pence)
English nonmetropolitan
434 95
areas
England 898 84
In addition TCAs will incur administration costs,
including staff costs and pass issuing costs. We do not
hold information for these additional costs of administering
the scheme.
Further information, including forecasts of
reimbursement for 2012/13, is published in the Bus08
series of tables at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus08-
concessionary-travel
The information for Worcestershire is subject to
restrictions on the use of commercial data collected by
the TCA from bus operators.
The Department does not have information for Worcester
as it is a lower tier local authority which is not a TCA.
Motor Vehicles: Testing
Sir Robert Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what assessment he has made of whether the
recently negotiated Council of Ministers’ position on
the European Commission’s proposals for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor
vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive
2009/40/EC would require the UK and other member
states to introduce domestic legislation in order to
remove the exemption of mobile cranes from
undergoing roadworthiness testing. [154375]
Stephen Hammond: It is our view that if the recently
negotiated Council of Ministers’ position were reflected
in a finally approved directive, that the exemption of
mobile cranes in domestic legislation from roadworthiness
tests may need to be removed. However the directive
has not yet been finalised. Negotiations continue with
MEPs considering and amending the original proposal
prior to it being put as a Bill before the European
Parliament.
Motorways: Speed Limits
Mr Leech: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the
potential increase in the cost of car insurance if the
motorway speed limit were raised to eighty miles-perhour;
[154121]
(2) what assessment he has made of the potential
increase in damage to road surfaces and fixtures if the
motorway speed limit were raised to eighty miles-perhour;
[154122]
(3) what assessment he has made of the potential
increase in the number of people killed or seriously
injured in road traffic accidents if the motorway speed
limit were raised to eighty miles-per-hour; [154124]
(4) whether he has made an estimate of the potential
increase in costs to drivers of increased fuel usage
arising from an increase in the motorway speed limit to
80 miles per hour; [154364]
(5) what assessment he has made of the road
infrastructure costs involved in raising the motorway
speed limit to 80 miles per hour; [154625]
(6) what assessment he has made of the potential
increase in carbon emissions if the motorway speed
limit were raised to eighty miles per hour. [154123]
Stephen Hammond: We have been working to assess
the potential economic, safety and environmental impacts
of trialling 80 mph speed limits across a number of sites
on the motorway network. That work is not yet complete
and we would consult on the potential impacts before
proceeding with trials.
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how many contracts issued as part of the
high-level output specification project, have used
clauses contained within the Public Services (Social
Value) Act 2012 to date. [154111]
Mr Simon Burns: No contracts have been let by the
Department to which the provisions might apply since
the provision came into force on 31 January 2013.
Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what steps his Department is taking to
implement the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
in its procurement procedures; and what guidance he
has given to his Department’s executive agencies and
non-departmental public bodies on implementation of
that Act. [154540]
Norman Baker: The Department for Transport has
embedded consideration of the Act’s provisions in its
procedures at the requirement conception stage, rather
than focusing solely on the procurement process. This
picks up the requirement of the Act to consider social
impact at the pre-procurement stage. This is reflected in
our models for option assessment, business case templates,
management assurance and consultation guidance. The
Act is also referenced in the Department’s procurement

227W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
228W
guidance and assurance process. All of these provisions
are applicable to, and were explained in a briefing open
to all procurement staff, in the Department, its executive
agencies and non-departmental bodies.
Publications
Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how much his Department spent on
subscriptions to academic journals published by (a)
Reed-Elsevier, (b) Wiley-Blackwell, (c) Springer and
(d) any other academic publisher in each of the last
five years. [154502]
Norman Baker: Information on subscriptions to academic
journals is held by title only. Therefore the requested
information could only be obtained at disproportionate
cost.
Rail Franchise Advisory Panel
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what the annual rate of pay will be for each
member of the Rail Franchise Advisory Panel. [154464]
Mr Simon Burns: The time commitment is expected
to equate to a one-two days per month averaged over
the year as part of the panel members’ appointment.
The panel members were offered a day rate as part of
their appointment and any costs to Government, up to
approximately £10,000-£25,000 per member, from the
panel will be published as part of the Department for
Transport’s annual accounts.
Railways: Franchises
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how many staff from (a) his Department
and (b) other government departments are involved in
negotiations with the incumbent franchisee for an
extended rail passenger service contract on the (i) Essex
Thameside, (ii) Thameslink, (iii) Inter City West Coast,
(iv) Great Western, (v) Greater Anglia, (vi) Northern,
(vii) London Midland, (viii) East Midlands and (ix)
South Eastern line. [154406]
Mr Simon Burns: As of the end of March 2013, the
number of Department of Transport staff directly involved
in negotiations with the incumbent franchisees for the
extended rail passenger service contracts were (i) six
staff for c2c (Essex Thameside), (ii) nil for First Capital
Connect (Thameslink), (iii) nil for Intercity West Coast,
(iv) eight staff for First Great Western, (v) nil for
Greater Anglia, (vi) nil for Northern, (vii) nil for London
Midland, (viii) nil for East Midlands and (ix) nil for
South Eastern. No staff from other Government
Departments are directly involved in negotiations with
the incumbent franchisee for the extended rail passenger
service contracts.
Rescue Services
John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what contractual obligations will be placed
on the holders of air sea rescue contracts to participate
in military-led civil operations, exercises and
preparation. [155310]
Stephen Hammond: The contractors providing UK
search and rescue helicopters are obliged to work with
Ministry of Defence aircraft for flying training exercises
and emergency response.
Transport: Nottinghamshire
Mr Spencer: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport (1) what assessment his Department has
made of current transport infrastructure in former
coalfield villages in Sherwood constituency; [154092]
(2) what the average investment in rail infrastructure
has been in each parliamentary constituency since
2010; [154094]
(3) how much investment in rail infrastructure there
has been in (a) Sherwood constituency and (b)
Nottinghamshire since 2000. [154095]
Norman Baker: The Department for Transport has
made no assessment of current transport infrastructure
in the Sherwood Constituency, as Nottinghamshire County
Council is responsible for assessing transport infrastructure
within Nottinghamshire and this is set out in their
Local Transport Plan for 2011-2026.
HM Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis
(PESA) tables do provide a regional breakdown of total
transport spend. This can be found at the following
link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/publicexpenditure-statistical-analyses-2012
The Department does not hold information on rail
infrastructure spending at a parliamentary constituency
level.
West Coast Railway Line
Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport if he will publish a series of graphs showing
percentage capacity usage for the West Coast Mainline
on working days on the vertical axis and time of day on
the horizontal axis for the (a) London to Milton
Keynes, (b) London to Birmingham, (c) London to
Manchester and (d) London to Lichfield Trent Valley
stretches of the line in the most recent period for which
figures are available. [154216]
Norman Baker: Track capacity is not a fixed figure as
it is a variable based upon a range of factors including
services, rolling stock and stopping patterns.
The Department for Transport does not hold such
information, which is an operational matter for Network
Rail.
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Carbon Sequestration
Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what funding and support
he plans to make available for the reserve projects in the
Carbon Capture and Storage Commercialisation
Competition. [154797]
Michael Fallon: On 20 March we announced the
selection of preferred bidders in the CCS Competition—the
Peterhead project and White Rose project. The remaining

229W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
230W
two bidders, Teesside Low Carbon and Captain Clean
Energy, were appointed as reserve projects. These bids
may be called to participate in the next stage of the
competition if one or both of the preferred bidders fails
to enter into a Front End Engineering and Design
(FEED) contract.
My officials are continuing to engage with all parties
during this phase of the competition as well as exploring
potential support for CCS projects under the Electricity
Market Reform programme.
Civil Nuclear Constabulary: Firearms
Sir Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State
for Energy and Climate Change what the status is of
those civil nuclear police officers who are unable to
carry firearms as a result of illness or injury. [154099]
Michael Fallon: Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC)
Authorised Firearms Officers (AFO) who are unable to
carry firearms due to illness or injury retain their contractual
AFO status. However, they are treated as non-deployable
with immediate effect and, depending on the long term
prognosis, will either return to AFO duties or will be
managed through the CNC’s performance or capability
processes.
Coal
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change with reference to the
answer of 14 March 2013, Official Report, column 454,
on the deep-mine coal industry, what progress has been
made in developing a short to medium-term coal
strategy. [155208]
Michael Fallon: As my predecessor, my right hon.
Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings
(Mr Hayes), stated on 14 March 2013, we believe that
the interests of the industry at this point are best served
by concentrating our efforts on supporting coal producers
to manage the very significant shorter-term challenges
they currently face. Once the outcome of that priority
work is clearer we can then assess how best to meet the
industry’s future interests in the context of our wider
energy policy agenda.
Energy
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what recent discussions he
has had with Ofgem regarding energy efficiency targets
for energy companies. [154599]
Michael Fallon: The Department is in regular contact
with Ofgem in relation to the energy efficiency schemes
which the Government imposes on energy companies.
The administration and enforcement of these schemes
is a matter for Ofgem.
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what the statutory or
other parliamentary authority is on which he will rely
to incur expenditure or other financial liability
pursuant to any investment contract he enters into, or
strike price agreed, prior to the Energy Bill gaining
Royal Assent. [154892]
Michael Fallon: Any investment contract that is entered
into before Royal Assent of the Energy Bill will be
conditional on the relevant provisions in the Energy Bill
gaining Royal Assent.
Energy: Competition
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change with reference to the
answer of 14 March 2013, Official Report, column 465,
on energy market competition, (1) when the actions of
Ofgem and industry to improve liquidity in the
wholesale power market will be assessed on their
effectiveness; [155060]
(2) by what criteria his Department will judge
whether the actions of Ofgem and industry to improve
liquidity in the wholesale power market have been
insufficient. [155061]
Michael Fallon: Poor liquidity in the wholesale market,
in particular in the forward markets, is acting as a
barrier to entry and greater competition. Ofgem is
currently taking forward reforms to address this issue.
We support Ofgem’s objectives and are keen to see
swift and appropriate action from the regulator. We are
therefore encouraged by Ofgem’s strong preference, in
its latest consultation, for intervention, with a decision
expected by summer 2013. We will assess the effectiveness
of its reforms once we see the final proposed intervention
options.
Government are seeking backstop powers through
the current Energy Bill to address low liquidity if necessary,
but Ofgem remains the primary vehicle for delivering
any necessary regulatory intervention. It is important
that their reform process is allowed to come to a decision
before considering whether the proposals are sufficient
to improve liquidity.
Energy: Housing
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change (1) how many properties
were connected to the gas distribution network in (a)
2009, (b) 2010, (c) 2011 and (d) 2012; [154771]
(2) how many households in (a) the UK, (b)
England, (c) Scotland, (d) Wales and (e) Northern
Ireland are off the mains gas grid; and what percentage
of off-grid households in (i) the UK, (ii) England, (iii)
Scotland, (iv) Wales and (v) Northern Ireland are
within 500 metres of the gas grid. [154781]
Michael Fallon: Annual statistics on the number of
gas meters are available on the Department’s website for
the years 2005 to 2011, Data for 2012 will be published
in December 2013. It is estimated that 22.58 million
households were connected to the gas distribution network
in 2009; 22.72 million in 2010 and 22.84 million in 2011.
For 2011, it is estimated that 4.46 million homes in
Great Britain did not have access to the gas network;
3.33 million of these households were in England,
0.83 million in Scotland and 0.27 million in Wales. Data
on gas connections in Northern Ireland, and data on
the number of households within 500 metres of the gas
grid, are not held by DECC.
The off gas grid estimates have been produced based
on information from the Gemserv database on the

231W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
232W
location of electricity meters, and data from xoserve
and independent gas transporters on the location of gas
meters, which are used to produce the Department’s
sub-national energy statistics for Great Britain. Subtracting
the number of gas meters from the number of electricity
meters produces a broad estimate of the number of
homes that do not have access to the gas network. It
should be noted that these estimates will overestimate
the number of homes due to some homes having more
than one electricity meter, and also that the statistics
may include non-domestic gas meters.
Details of all methodologies used to compile the
statistics can be found at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/regional/
regional.aspx
Sub-national data showing the number of gas meters
and consumption can be found at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/
regional/gas/gas.aspx
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has
made of network owners’ commitment to connect an
additional 80,000 homes in fuel poverty to the gas
distribution network. [154772]
Gregory Barker: The Department supports this scheme,
and the efforts of Ofgem and the Gas Network Owners
to extend the grid to vulnerable households for whom a
gas connection could mean lower energy costs. However
we believe the promotion and operation of this scheme
is a matter for the energy regulator and the network
owners.
I am aware that Ofgem are planning a review of this
scheme next year to assess whether it still serves as a
suitable solution for vulnerable customers, we will be
engaging with Ofgem and await the findings of this
review.
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change whether his Department
provides assistance to households within 500 metres of
the gas grid to enable them to seek connection.
[154777]
Michael Fallon: The Department does not currently
provide any assistance to households within 500 metres
of the gas grid to enable them to seek gas connection.
Ofgem is responsible for regulating the extension of the
gas grid, and individual connections are a matter for the
local Gas Distribution Networks (GDNs).
DECC are currently promoting alternative, low carbon,
options for off-grid consumers through the Renewable
Heat Premium Payment Scheme (RHPP) which provides
grants towards renewable heating systems, including
ground and air source heat pumps, biomass boilers, and
solar thermal heaters. These technologies have the ability
to bring down fuel bills in comparison to heating oil
and LPG which are most commonly used by off-grid
consumers.
DECC has extended the RHPP scheme to provide
on-going support for the domestic renewable heat market,
ahead of the launch of the Domestic Renewable Heat
Incentive in 2014.
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change how much the cost of
heating an average home with (a) propane and home
fuel oil and (b) gas has changed in each year since
2009. [154778]
Michael Fallon: DECC does not hold data on average
consumption levels of households using propane and
home fuel oil, and as such does not produce average
costs for these. However, data from fuel components of
the retail price index shows that the prices of propane
and home fuel oil and gas changed as follows between
2009 and 2012:
(a) Propane and home
fuel oil
(b) Gas
2009 126.4 193.5
2010 161.2 182.0
2011 201.4 201.4
2012 206.8 222.8
These data are shown in the form of an index, where
costs in 2005 are set to 100, and subsequent years are
shown relative to that year.
Energy: Job Creation
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has
made of the number of jobs created in (a) renewable
energy, (b) nuclear power and (c) network providers in
(i) the UK, (ii) England, (iii) Scotland, (iv) Wales and
(v) Northern Ireland in (A) 2009, (B) 2010, (C) 2011
and (D) 2012. [154768]
Michael Fallon: In response to part (a), the Department
does not currently collect this information in the format
requested.
Between 1 April 2011 and 31 July 2012, DECC has
collated renewable announcements that have the potential
to support around 22,800 jobs across the UK.
We are currently revising our methodology for collecting
data on jobs created in the renewable energy sector and
intend to publish up to date jobs figures shortly.
In response to part (b), the Department cannot
provide a specific breakdown of the number of jobs
created in nuclear power, however, the Nuclear Industry
Association have produced ’Jobs Maps’ detailing the
number of employees by parliamentary constituency in
the UK Civil Nuclear Industry for the years 2009, 2010,
2011 and 2012. Note that for 2012 there are maps for
the UK as a whole and one for Scotland. The documents
containing this information will be placed in the Libraries
of the House.
In response to part (c), the Department does not
collect this information, though the network providers
in these countries may do.
Energy: Prices
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change with reference to the
answer of 25 February 2013, Official Report, column
238W, on energy, what estimate his Department has
made of the average household saving as a result of his
proposals to move people to the cheapest energy tariff
that meets their preferences. [155057]

233W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
234W
Gregory Barker: Under our proposals suppliers would
move customers off poor value dead tariffs and on to
the cheapest tariff that meets their preferences. In its
retail market review, Ofgem have estimated that there
are over 650 dead tariffs and we would expect more to
be created as a result of the introduction of a tariff cap.
Whether or not these are of poor value so that a
customer is moved to a cheaper tariff and the level
savings made from this will depend on the tariffs a
supplier is offering at that point. This will be a commercial
decision for each supplier.
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change with reference to the
answer of 25 February 2013, Official Report, column
238W, on energy, what estimate his Department has
made of the number of households that will be moved
to a cheaper energy tariff as a result of the proposals
contained in the Energy Bill. [155058]
Gregory Barker: Under our proposals suppliers would
have to move customers off poor value dead tariffs. In
its retail market review, Ofgem have estimated that there
are over 650 dead tariffs and we would expect more to
be created as a result of the introduction of a tariff cap.
Whether or not these are of poor value so that a
customer is moved to a cheaper tariff will depend on
the tariffs a supplier is offering at that point. This will
be a commercial decision for each supplier.
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change with reference to the
answer of 14 March 2013, Official Report, column 458,
on energy bills, what assessment his Department has
made of the impact of decarbonising the power sector
by 2030 on consumer energy bills. [155064]
Gregory Barker: The Government have recently published
its assessment of the impacts of energy and climate
change policies on consumer energy bills 1 . This shows
that taken together, these policies mean that household
energy bills will be on average 11%, or £166, lower in
2020 than if the policies had not been introduced. On
average, energy efficiency savings from policies are expected
to more than offset the necessary costs of supporting
low carbon investment.
Taking account of the impact of low carbon generating
plant on the wholesale electricity price (‘merit order
impacts’), policies to support decarbonisation of electricity
supply (Electricity Market Reform, EU ETS, the Carbon
Price Floor and Renewables Obligation) currently add
around 4% to household energy bills (including VAT).
By 2020 it is estimated that these policies will add an
average of around 10% to household bills (including
VAT). These impacts are consistent with a scenario
where the carbon intensity of grid electricity supply is
reduced to 100gCO 2 per kWh by 2030.
Decarbonising the power sector will help reduce the
UK’s exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices and over the
long term consumers stand to benefit from cleaner,
cheaper and more reliable sources of low carbon energy:
1
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/172923/130326_-
_Price_and_Bill_Impacts_Report_Final.pdf
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change with reference to the
answer of 27 February 2013, Official Report, column
494W, on energy: billing, what methodology his
Department plans to use to establish what the cheapest
tariff that meets consumers’ preference is. [155073]
Gregory Barker: The powers in the Energy Bill relating
to tariffs are designed to be backstop powers to ensure
that Government can take action to implement my right
hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensure
consumers are on the cheapest tariff for them, should
Ofgem’s Retail Market Reform proposals not deliver or
be frustrated or delayed.
Ofgem have set out a methodology for assessing a
supplier’s cheapest tariff in their retail market review
final domestic proposals which can be found at:
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/rmr/
Documents1/The%20Retail%20Market%20Review%20-
%20Final%20domestic%20proposals.pdf
EU Energy Policy
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change how he proposes to
comply with the standstill obligation in EU state aid
law if he enters into an investment contract or sets a
strike price before the European Commission has
decided whether to approve such measures. [154850]
Michael Fallon: Any investment contract, if offered,
will contain a condition dependent on a state aid decision
from the European Commission.
Green Deal Scheme
Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change how many (a)
assessments have been undertaken, (b) households
have signed up to an installation and (c) households
have received an installation under the Green Deal to
date. [153908]
Gregory Barker [holding answer 14 May 2013]: Up
to the end of April 2013, there had been 18,816 Green
Deal Assessments in Great Britain lodged, as reported
in the following statistics release:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-deal-andenergy-company-obligation-eco-monthly-statistics-may-2013
The next monthly statistical release is planned for
publication on 27 June 2013 and will contain, for the
first time, information on Green Deal Plans taken out
and measures installed through the Green Deal and
Energy Company Obligation.
Heating
Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change when he expects to
publish results of the latest field trials of heat pumps
commissioned by his Department. [155112]
Gregory Barker: The analysis of data from the second
phase of the Energy Saving Trust field trial will be
published by DECC this summer.

235W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
236W
Hinkley Point C Power Station
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change if he will make a
statement on the current position of negotiations with
EDF for a contract for electricity from Hinkley
Point C. [154985]
Michael Fallon: It would not be appropriate to make
a statement at this stage of the commercial negotiations.
Should any agreement be reached in relation to an
investment contract for Hinkley Point C, I will make a
statement as required by the Energy Bill at the time I lay
the contract before Parliament. In addition, in the case
of Hinkley Point C, the Government has committed to
provide summaries of reports from external advisers
and analysis on the value for money of any contract
agreed.
Natural Gas: Bassetlaw
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change how many and what proportion
of homes in Bassetlaw do not have access to the gas
network. [154162]
Michael Fallon: The exact number of homes that do
not have access to the gas network is not held centrally.
Estimates have been produced based on information
from the Gemserv database on the location of electricity
meters, and data from xoserve and independent gas
transporters on the location of gas meters, which are
used to produce the Departments sub-national energy
statistics. Subtracting the number of gas meters from
the number of electricity meters produces a broad estimate
of the number of homes that do not have access to the
gas network. It should be noted that these estimates will
overestimate the number of homes due to some homes
having more than one electricity meter, and also that the
statistics may include non-domestic gas meters.
It is estimated that, for 2011, 10,300 homes in the
Bassetlaw local authority did not have access to the gas
network; this represents 20.5% of homes in the area.
Natural Gas: Imports
Graeme Morrice: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change if he will introduce
measures to reduce the UK’s dependence on imported
gas. [154219]
Michael Fallon: The Government already works to
maximise economic UK gas production (including
potentially from unconventional sources) and restrain
gas demand (e.g. through promoting renewable heat
and encouraging energy efficiency). Nevertheless UK
gas import dependency is expected to continue rising
given declines in North sea production. We therefore
also have a range of mechanisms in place to promote
the security and affordability of gas imports, including
extensive import infrastructure, liberalisation of EU
and international gas markets, and strong bilateral relations
with key gas suppliers.
Natural Gas: North East
Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made
of the number of off-gas grid households in (a)
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland
constituency, (b) the Tees Valley and (c) the North
East of England. [154362]
Michael Fallon: The exact number of homes that do
not have access to the gas network is not held centrally.
Estimates have been produced based on information
from the Gemserv database on the location of electricity
meters, and data from xoserve and independent gas
transporters on the location of gas meters, which are
used to produce the Department’s sub-national energy
statistics. Subtracting the number of gas meters from
the number of electricity meters produces a broad estimate
of the number of homes that do not have access to the
gas network. It should be noted that these estimates will
overestimate the number of homes due to some homes
having more than one electricity meter, and also that the
statistics may include some non-domestic meters.
It is estimated that for 2011, 7,500 homes in the
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituencies
(a combination of the Middlesbrough and Redcar and
Cleveland local authorities) were off the gas grid. Likewise,
17,800 homes in the Tees Valley (a combination of
Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and
Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees local authorities) and
112,200 homes in the North East of England did not
have access to the gas network.
Nuclear Power Stations
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what the forecast out of
service date is for each nuclear power station; and what
the power output is for each such power station.
[154987]
Michael Fallon: The scheduled closure dates for each
nuclear power station and the net generation capacity
for each such power station is detailed in the table
below. The Government do not publish data on output
at individual plant level.
Table of past and present UK nuclear reactors
Net capacity (MW)
Number of operating
reactors
Published lifetime
Magnox (NDA)
Wylfa 490 1 1971 to 2014
Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (AGR) - British Energy
Heysham 1 1,155 2 1989 to 2019
Hinkley Point B 810 2 1976 to 2023

237W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
238W
Table of past and present UK nuclear reactors
Net capacity (MW)
Number of operating
reactors
Published lifetime
Hunterson B 890 2 1976 to 2023
Dungeness B 1,040 2 1985 to 2018
Hartlepool 1,180 2 1989 to 2019
Heysham 2 1,220 2 1989 to 2023
Torness 1,185 2 1988 to 2023
Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) - British Energy
Sizewell B 1,198 1 1995 to 2035
Total net capacity and number of operating reactors 9,168 16
Nuclear Power Stations: Construction
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change what evaluation and due diligence
has been carried out by his Department of the ability
of Electricité de France to capitalise the construction
of any new nuclear power plant in the UK. [154466]
Michael Fallon: The offer of any investment contract
in support of a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley
Point C will require EDF to put in place a robust and
appropriate financing plan for the construction of the
station.
Ofgem
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change (1) how many
enforcement cases currently being undertaken by
Ofgem are at informal review stage; [154928]
(2) how many staff of Ofgem received bonuses in
excess of (a) £1,420, (b) £2,000, (c) £5,000, (d)
£10,000, (e) £20,000 and (f) £50,000 in 2012-13;
[154929]
(3) what the (a) average and (b) total amount paid
in bonuses to staff at Ofgem was in 2012-13; [154931]
(4) how many staff employed at Ofgem received
bonuses in 2012-13. [154933]
Michael Fallon: The information requested is a matter
for Ofgem. I have asked the Chief Executive of Ofgem
to write to the right hon. Member and we will place a
copy of his letter in the Libraries of the House.
Power Stations
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change (1) what the forecast out
of service date is for each gas power station; and what
the power output is for each such power station;
[154986]
(2) what the forecast out of service date is for each
oil-fired power station; and what the power output is
for each such power station; [154988]
(3) what the forecast out of service date is for each
coal-fired power station; and what the power output is
for each such power station. [154989]
Michael Fallon: DECC publishes information about
the capacity of individual power stations annually in its
Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES),
Chapter 5: Electricity.
The 2012 version of the report can be found online
at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-ofenergy-climate-change/series/digest-of-uk-energy-statisticsdukes
Decisions over when individual plants close are a
commercial matter for individual operators.
Renewable Energy
Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change whether his Department has made
an assessment of whether independent generators,
including co-operatives, will be at a market
disadvantage under the electricity market reform
proposals. [155287]
Gregory Barker: The Government are committed to
supporting investment by independent generators, including
co-operatives. Independent developers have played an
important role in delivering new capacity, and we expect
them to continue, to make a material contribution to
delivering investment and meeting our objectives of
keeping energy prices affordable and supplies secure as
we decarbonise. Accordingly, the Government are working
to ensure that the electricity market reform proposals
support independent generation.
The contracts for difference proposed in the Energy
Bill will remove wholesale price risk and consequently
improve conditions in the market for long-term power
purchase agreements needed by many independent low
carbon developers to secure project finance.
Further, we are taking powers in the Energy Bill to
give Government the flexibility to support the
availability of viable power purchase agreements for
independent generators, should the market not develop
as expected.
Wind Power
Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has
made of the likely price per megawatt-hour of
electricity generated by offshore wind in each year
between 2014 to 2030. [154467]

239W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
240W
Michael Fallon: DECC has published levelised costs
estimates of various generation technologies including
offshore wind on the DECC website for selected years.
A summary report of the levelised cost data was published
in November 2012 and is available on the DECC website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/65713/6883-electricity-generationcosts.pdf
Please note that published estimates for offshore wind
are based on scenarios of technical potential for deployment
of offshore wind. If these levels of deployment do not
materialise cost reductions may be less pronounced,
similarly innovation changes may accelerate cost reductions.
Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made
of the likely price per megawatt-hour of electricity
generated by offshore wind in each year from 2014 to
2030 if a decarbonisation target for electricity
generation in 2030 of between 40 and 60 grams per
kilowatt-hour is set in 2014. [154802]
Michael Fallon: DECC has published levelised costs
estimates of various generation technologies including
offshore wind on the DECC website for selected years.
A summary report of the levelised cost data was published
in November 2012 and is available on the DECC website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/65713/6883-electricity-generationcosts.pdf
Please note that published estimates for offshore wind
are based on scenarios of technical potential for deployment
of offshore wind. If these levels of deployment do not
materialise cost reductions may be less pronounced,
similarly innovation changes may accelerate cost reductions.
DECC does not publish estimates associated with a
specific decarbonisation target.
Wind Power: Seas and Oceans
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change with reference to the
Speech by the Prime Minister of 25 October 2010, on
what projects the funds to support the establishment of
offshore wind manufacturing at port sites in assisted
areas of England have been used; and how much
funding has been allocated to each such project.
[154436]
Michael Fallon: Bids for support under this scheme
are made on a confidential basis. Under the Grant for
Business Investment scheme, information on grant offers
for sums greater than £75,000 is normally published
following the payment of the first instalment of the
grant, including the name and location of the recipient
of the grant and the size of the grant offered.
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
Arctic
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what timetable he
has set for the development of his Department’s policy
framework for the Arctic. [155069]
Mark Simmonds: The Government have committed
to publishing the policy framework for the Arctic in the
summer of 2013.
Bahrain
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what
representations (a) he and (b) the UK Embassy in
Bahrain has received in response to the publication of
articles from Bahraini journalists and commentators
on that Embassy’s blog marking World Press Freedom
Day. [154683]
Alistair Burt: We have received representations from
two non-governmental organisations (NGOs). We explained
that the views expressed in the guest blogs for World
Press Freedom Day that were published on the British
embassy in Bahrain’s webpage do not reflect those of
the UK Government. All views expressed are solely
those of the authors.
Our most recent human rights report made clear that
we have some serious concerns about human rights in
Bahrain—including freedom of expression—and our
ambassador and Ministers raise these concerns regularly
both in private and public.
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Bahraini
journalists and commentators were invited by the UK
Embassy in Bahrain to write an article for that
Embassy’s blog on freedom of expression in Bahrain
on World Press Freedom Day; what criteria were used
to decide which journalists and commentators were
invited to do so; and what efforts were made to ensure
balance in the selection of articles to be published.
[154684]
Alistair Burt: To mark World Press Freedom Day, the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) asked journalists
and bloggers to write guest blogs and articles in order to
highlight freedom of expression across the world through
personal testimonies. We had over 20 contributions
from our embassies—including blogs, videos, and articles.
All views expressed in guest blogs for World Press
Freedom Day are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect Government policy.
The embassy in Bahrain asked a range of journalists
and commentators to contribute in order to ensure
balance. Not all those invited responded, and the embassy
published all of the articles they received. We made it
clear that the views expressed on the guest blogs that
appeared on the embassy’s pages are not those of the
Government.
British Indian Ocean Territory
Mr Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings
officials of his Department have had with officials of
the US administration on the subject of renewing the
lease on Diego Garcia; and on what dates. [155750]
Mark Simmonds: The 1966 exchange of notes with
the US provides that the islands of the British Indian
Ocean Territory (BIOT), including Diego Garcia, shall
be available to them until 30 December 2016 and continuing
thereafter for a further period of 20 years unless terminated
by either Government in the period 2014-16. There is
no lease.

241W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
242W
There have been no substantive discussions to date
with the US on the future of their presence in BIOT
post-2016, but we look forward to discussing this with
them in due course.
Mr Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects
to conclude negotiations with the US administration
on extending the lease on Diego Garcia. [155751]
Mark Simmonds: The 1966 exchange of notes with
the US provides that the islands of the British Indian
Ocean Territory (BIOT), including Diego Garcia, shall
be available to them until 30 December 2016 and continuing
thereafter for a further period of 20 years unless terminated
by either Government in the period 2014-16. There is
no lease.
There have been no substantive discussions to date
with the US on the future of their presence in BIOT
post-2016. We look forward to discussing this with
them in due course, but cannot speculate on when those
discussions are likely to conclude.
British Overseas Territories
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what fishing and
marine protection patrols have been undertaken in (a)
Tristan da Cunha, (b) Bermuda and (c) Pitcairn
Island in the last 12 months. [154859]
Mark Simmonds: There have been no dedicated fishing
and marine protection patrols in Tristan da Cunha or
the Pitcairn Islands in the last 12 months.
In Bermuda, fishing and marine protection patrols
are undertaken, either on land or at sea daily, weather
and equipment permitting. Areas patrolled arc largely
the Bermuda Platform and Offshore Banks. Four (4)
vessels are available for patrols.
Territory Governments are responsible for the protection
and conservation of their natural environments and not
all information related to vessel inspections is held
centrally in the UK,
Burma
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the
Government is taking to urge the government of
Burma to address rising religious intolerance in that
country. [155282]
Mr Swire: We are extremely concerned about the
recent violence directed at Muslim communities that
has affected parts of Burma, and about reports showing
a rise in anti-Muslim and anti-Christian propaganda in
the country. We are actively monitoring these issues. On
21 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member
for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), issued a
statement on behalf of the British Government,
condemning the violence in Meiktila and urging the
Burmese Government to take all necessary action to
protect civilians and to work with communities to tackle
the underlying hostility.
We note the speech by President Thein Sein on 7 May,
in which he stressed the importance to Burma’s future
of diversity and tolerance. The British Government
currently funds organisations that deliver interfaith dialogue
projects. We have also lobbied the Burmese Government
to ask them to issue an invitation to the UN Special
Rapporteur to visit the country.
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent
discussions he has had with the government of Burma
regarding anti-Muslim violence. [155290]
Mr Swire: The Senior Minister of State, my noble
Friend the right hon. Baroness Warsi, on 15 April, and
the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond
(Yorks) (Mr Hague), on 16 April, raised the issue of
anti-Muslim violence with a delegation of senior Burmese
Ministers on their visit to London, calling for accountability
of those responsible and for action to bring communities
together.
British officials have continued to raise the issue of
anti-Muslim violence with the Burmese Government,
since the inter-communal unrest in Rakhine State in
2012 and the incidents in Meiktila from 20-25 March.
Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Burma discussed these
issues with senior advisors to the Burmese President on
1 May, in the aftermath of the most recent violence
against Muslim communities, in Oak Kan. The Ambassador
used this occasion to call on the Burmese Government
to do all it could to prevent further attacks.
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is
taking to urge the government of Burma to address the
culture of impunity in that country. [155298]
Mr Swire: We regularly raise specific allegations of
human rights abuses with the Burmese Government at
the most senior levels. We are clear that all those who
are guilty of instigating, inciting or carrying out violence
in Burma need to be held accountable for their crimes.
This should be done through a clear and transparent
investigative and prosecutorial process.
During a meeting on 15 April, the Senior Minister of
State, my noble Friend the right hon. Baroness Warsi
pressed Aung Min, Minister for Burmese President’s
Office, to follow up on the commitment made by President
Thein Sein to open an office of the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR). The Secretary of State
for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague),
reiterated this point during his meeting with Aung Min
on 16 April. We continue to make clear that an OHCHR
office in Burma would be beneficial in assisting the
Burmese Government to address some of the serious
human rights concerns outlined by the international
community.
Egypt
Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent
discussions he has had with the Egyptian authorities
regarding the alleged kidnapping of refugees from East
Sudan who are being held captive in the Sinai
peninsula in Egypt. [154752]

243W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
244W
Alistair Burt: The Government remains concerned
about reports of people-trafficking in the Sinai. We
have raised these concerns with the Egyptian and Israeli
authorities, most recently with the Egyptian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in March 2013. We have also raised the
treatment of refugees in Sinai with the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees in Cairo, which, at the
request of the Egyptian authorities, deals with asylum
seekers in Egypt.
Enfield
Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much
funding (a) his Department and (b) each of the
non-departmental public bodies for which he is
responsible has allocated to the London Borough of
Enfield local authority in each of the last five years.
[154515]
Mr Lidington: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(FCO) has not allocated any funding to the London
borough of Enfield local authority in any of the last
five years.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond
(Yorks) (Mr Hague), is responsible for the following
non-departmental public bodies: Wilton Park; the British
Council; the BBC World Service; the Marshall Aid
Commemoration Commission; the Great Britain-China
Centre; and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
Of these, only the British Council has provided funding
to the London borough of Enfield local authority. The
British Council has funded a wide range of activity in
the London borough of Enfield. Funding, however, is
allocated to individual institutions, as opposed to local
authority area. As a result, details of the total funding
allocated within the borough would be available only at
disproportionate cost.
Entry Clearances: Charities
Mike Crockart: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his
Department spent on providing gratis visas to charities
in each of the last five years. [154077]
Mr Swire: The information requested is not held
centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate
cost.
Geneva Conventions
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is
taking to push for the updating of the definition of
combatants and non-combatants in the Geneva
Conventions. [155022]
Mark Simmonds: The British Government are committed
to upholding the Geneva conventions and encouraging
others to do the same. We are not pushing for the
conventions to be updated. We judge that the current
priority is to improve implementation of existing
international humanitarian law including the Geneva
conventions, rather than the creation of new law.
Inflation
Mr Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the purposes
for which his Department uses (a) the retail price
index measure of inflation, (b) the consumer price
index measure of inflation and (c) any alternative
measure of inflation. [154976]
Mr Lidington: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(FCO) uses measures of inflation internally for analytical
and management information purposes, but no area of
expenditure is currently directly linked to inflation rates.
The UK retail and consumer price indices are not
significant drivers for FCO policy or spending.
Some alternative measures of inflation are used by
the FCO: price surveys conducted overseas are factored
into the calculation of the cost of living allowance
(COLA) paid to compensate UK-based staff overseas;
our Posts abroad will consider local inflation when
setting pay levels for locally-engaged staff; and data
from the International Monetary Fund World Economic
Outlook are used to monitor the difference between
UK and overseas price levels to inform the FCO’s
overseas spending.
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his
Department is taking to implement the Public Services
(Social Value) Act 2012 in its procurement procedures;
and what guidance he has given to his Department’s
executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies
on implementation of that Act. [154533]
Mr Lidington: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(FCO) uses an impact analysis tool to identify the
potential of each of our high priority spend categories
to improve the social, economic or environmental well
being of the UK geographical areas where spend is
incurred. The FCO has provided the FCO executive
agencies and non-departmental public bodies with Cabinet
Office Guidance on the Act.
Saudi Arabia
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent
discussions he has had with his Saudi Arabian
counterpart regarding the rights of women in that
country. [154598]
Alistair Burt: The Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member
for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), discussed women’s
rights with the Foreign Minister, HRH Prince Saud
al-Faisal, when he visited Saudi Arabia in July 2011—
including education and employment opportunities, and
allowing women to drive vehicles. The last discussion he
had with Prince Saud on women’s rights was on
5 November 2012, where they discussed plans for the
Prime Minister to visit Dar Al Hekma College in Jeddah
the following day. During this visit, the Prime Minister
met female students and heard their assessment of
women’s rights in Saudi Arabia directly. On 5 March
the Foreign Secretary discussed women’s rights with the

245W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
246W
Speaker of Saudi Arabia’s Shura Council, and a delegation
of representatives which included two of the newly
appointed female members.
Serbia: Kosovo
Karen Lumley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment
he has made of the recent negotiations between Serbia
and Kosovo. [154104]
Mr Lidington: As the Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the
Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), said on 19
April, we welcome the agreement that Serbia and Kosovo
have reached in the EU-facilitated dialogue.
I congratulate the High Representative of the Union
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the right hon.
the Baroness Ashton of Upholland, for her part in
achieving this significant step, and Prime Ministers
Dacic and Thaci for showing the courage necessary to
reach this agreement. The agreement lays a solid basis
for further improvement in the relationship between
Serbia and Kosovo and is a valuable contribution to the
stability and security of the Western Balkans.
I urge both Serbia and Kosovo to implement this
agreement rapidly, to remain constructively engaged in
dialogue, and to take the further actions needed to
continue their progress towards future membership of
the EU, and a stable and prosperous future for their
citizens.
Syria
Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent
discussions he has had with the Turkish authorities
regarding allegations that Syrian refugees were forcibly
returned to Syria from the Akcakale refugee camp.
[154751]
Mr Lidington: The British Government continues to
monitor closely the refugee situation in Turkey and has
regular discussions with Turkish counterparts. We have
not had any specific discussions about the alleged return
of refugees from the Akcakale camp.
In order to support Turkey in the refugee response,
the UK has provided over £6 million in humanitarian
aid for the refugee response in Turkey, including £1 million
to the Turkish Red Crescent. We welcome Turkey’s
generous provision of refuge for hundreds of thousands
of Syrians who have fled the violence and their efforts
to minimise the impact of the conflict on regional
stability.
Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent
discussions he has had with international aid
organisations in Syria and the surrounding countries
on reports of the selling of young women refugees.
[154755]
Justine Greening: I have been asked to reply on behalf
of the Department for International Development.
Women and children are among those particularly at
risk in situations of armed conflict, and Syria is no
exception. UK humanitarian funding is targeting some
of the most vulnerable people affected by the crisis. For
example, 1,800 particularly vulnerable Syrian women,
perceived to be at risk of coerced marriage, will receive
financial support to help mitigate the potential risk of
this exploitation.
The UK maintains a close ongoing working relationship
with our humanitarian partners to ensure we are aware
of developments in the humanitarian crisis in Syria and
the region, and are able to respond appropriately.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Animal Welfare: Dogs
Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his
Department is taking to assess the rehabilitation and
aftercare of dogs used in racing where owners no
longer intend to keep such animals; and if he will make
a statement. [155244]
Mr Heath: The sport’s regulatory authority, the
Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB), helps
fund the Retired Greyhound Trust which rehomes many
retired racing greyhounds. In addition, a significant
proportion of ex-racing greyhounds find homes with
their owners and trainers or through other welfare
charities and others will return to Ireland. It is the
responsibility of any racing greyhound owner to ensure
the welfare of their dog. Anyone failing to provide for
the welfare of their dog faces prosecution under the
Animal Welfare Act 2006.
G4S
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the current
level of expenditure by his Department is on contracts
with G4S; and how much was spent by his Department
on contracts with G4S in each year since 2008. [154552]
Richard Benyon: Core DEFRA has no contracts with
G4S and has not made any payments to G4S since
2008.
Horses: Databases
Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
expenditure his Department incurred on the cancelled
tendering process to replace the National Equine
Database. [154038]
Mr Heath: No additional cost was incurred in running
the tendering process to replace the National Equine
Database. The procurement exercise was managed by
existing staff resource.
Livestock: Exports
Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will bring
forward legislative proposals to amend the Harbours,
Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 in order to give
higher regard to the welfare of animals. [155027]

247W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
248W
Mr Heath: No. The Harbour Docks and Piers Clauses
Act 1847 aims to ensure that ports are available to all
without discrimination. It would not be an appropriate
legal instrument for use by port authorities to introduce
an effective barrier to trade. In any case, banning the
export of live animals would be illegal and undermine
the principle of free movement of goods enshrined in
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Livestock: Waste Disposal
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when he
proposes that farmers will be able to access funding
from the Fallen Stock scheme; [155009]
(2) who will administer the Fallen Stock scheme.
[155010]
Mr Heath: The Scheme for providing support to
farmers for the costs of disposal of sheep, which died in
the recent severe weather, will be administered by the
National Fallen Stock Company. The Scheme will be
administered at no cost to the taxpayer or farmer and
will be open to both members and non-members of the
National Fallen Stock Company’s regular Scheme. An
announcement is being made on how to claim support
and it is expected that payments to eligible farmers will
be made in July.
Pesticides
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what his policy
is on establishing a regional pilot scheme ban within
the UK on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. [154808]
Mr Heath: Measures recently proposed by the European
Commission to restrict authorisations of three
neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid
and thiamethoxam) will come into force later this year.
The Government will implement those measures on the
date required. The Government have no plans, either
nationally or on a regional or pilot basis, to impose
additional restrictions or to introduce the restrictions at
an earlier date.
Recycling: St Albans
Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
he has made of the risk of contamination of water
sources in the vicinity of the Appspond Lane Recycling
Centre following a recent fire on that site. [153912]
Richard Benyon: In response to the fire, the Environment
Agency carried out an assessment to identify possible
polluting matter present and examined the potential for
it to have an adverse impact elsewhere.
The Environment Agency sampled nearby groundwater
bodies in areas potentially at risk. The nearest public
water supply to Appspond Lane is approximately five
km from the site.
Based on its sample results, the Environment Agency
has not expressed any current concerns. During the
incident it liaised with the local water supplier, Affinity
Water. It provided the local authority, St Albans city
and district council, with the sampling data.
Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
he has made of air quality near the Appspond Lane
Recycling Centre after the recent fire on that site.
[153913]
Richard Benyon: The Environment Agency liaised
with Public Health England (formerly the Health Protection
Agency) and the assessment was that there was no
significant risk to human health.
Any inquiries about the impact of smoke on public
health were referred to the local authority and Public
Health England for advice.
EDUCATION
Academies
Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what deductions are applied to grant-in-aid
to (a) free schools and (b) academies to take account
of the number of fee-paying pupils entering the school
in any given year. [154211]
Mr Laws: Free schools and academies are not allowed
to charge fees. There are, therefore, no fee-paying pupils
attending free schools or academies and no adjustments
to funding are required.
Buildings
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what the total running costs were for each
building used, owned or rented in central London by
his Department, its agencies and non-departmental
public bodies other than buildings used primarily for
the provision of education, in each of the last three
financial years. [154249]
Elizabeth Truss: The Department for Education, its
agencies and non-departmental public bodies leased the
following properties in central London during the financial
years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Total running costs (£)
Central London properties 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Lease end
Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, SWIP
15,808,941.00 15,351,301.00 18,027,219.00 28 September 2017
3BT (DFE)
Greycoat Street, SW1P 2QB (DFE) 1,180,799.00 1,136,653.00 947,782.00 16 October 2014
1st Floor, 59-65 Wells Street, W1A 3AE
58,760.00 109,090.00 111,519.00 23 March 2015
(CAFCASS)
Principal Registry Family Division, 42-49 High
Holborn, WC1V 6NP (CAFCASS)
237,012.00 237,012.00 237,012.00 31 March 2014

249W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
250W
Total running costs (£)
Central London properties 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Lease end
83 Piccadilly, W1J 8JB (QCDA/DFE) 8,543,000.00 4,502,970.00 3,415,642.00 9 November 2012
Union Street, Southwark, SE1 0NW (Ofsted) 200,011.00 199,294.00 199,294.00 24 March 2016
Aviation House, Holborn, WC2B 6NH (Ofsted) 3,103,654.00 2,898,603.00 2,378,791.00 16 February 2018
The increase in the Sanctuary Buildings cost during
the financial year 2012-13 is due to the landlord electing
to charge VAT on the rent and an increase in non-domestic
rates. 83 Piccadilly has now been vacated.
Since May 2010 the Department for Education has
reduced the size of its operational estate across the
country from 30 properties, at a cost of circa £51 million
per annum, to 12 properties, costing circa £34 million
per annum. This is a saving of circa £17 million per
annum. The Department’s current Estates Strategy is to
consolidate further and reduce the size of its estate to
six properties. This includes reducing our central London
presence from two properties to one. The office at
Greycoat street will close at lease expiry in 2014 and the
staff based there will relocate to Sanctuary Buildings,
generating annual savings of circa £900,000.
We plan to vacate Sanctuary Buildings when the lease
expires in 2017 and we are working with the Government
Property Unit (GPU) to secure an alternative
accommodation solution that aligns to the GPU’s Property
Strategy for Central London, representing best value
for the taxpayer.
It should also be noted that Ofsted’s running costs at
Aviation house will reduce by a further £535,000 per
annum from April 2014 and in total their operational
costs in London will have reduced by circa £1.26 million
per annum over the four year period from 2010-11 to
2013-14.
Children in Care
Lucy Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education when he expects to publish the next stage of
the Children’s Home Reform Programme. [154258]
Mr Timpson: On 23 April I set out my plans to reform
children’s residential care, in response to the report of
the Task and Finish Group and Expert Group on
Quality of Children’s Homes. On 14 May my Department
held a seminar with children’s homes providers, local
authority representatives and voluntary organisations
to discuss our detailed delivery plan to reform the
quality of children’s homes provision and care. We will
be formally consulting on proposed changes to regulations
in June.
Children’s Centres
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education how many children’s centres provided
on-site full daycare on (a) 6 May 2010 and (b) 6May
2013. [155130]
Elizabeth Truss: The Department for Education collects
information on the provision of child care through the
annual Childcare and Early Years Provider Survey. This
allows an estimate to be made of the number of Sure
Start children’s centres providing full day care provision
on site. Estimates from the survey show that in 2010 the
number of children’s centres providing on-site full day
care was 800. In 2011 this figure had fallen to 550.
However, the 2011 survey indicates that demand for
child care provision specifically based in children’s centres
may have been affected by increases in the broader
supply of full day provision. The survey estimates that
between 2010 and 2011 the number of full day care
providers increased from 16,700 to 17,600.
These are the latest figures available to the Department.
The survey is now undertaken every other year and the
2013 survey is due to be published in September 2014.
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education how many children’s centres employed
qualified teachers as of (a) 6 May 2010 and (b) 6May
2013. [155131]
Elizabeth Truss: The Department collects information
on the provision of child care through the annual
Childcare and Early Years Provider Survey. This survey
does not report the number of children’s centres employing
qualified teachers. It does provide estimates of the
proportion of staff who are qualified teachers in children’s
centres which provide full day care. The estimates as a
percentage by year are 7% in 2009, 6% in 2010, and 8%
in 2011.
These are the latest figures available to the Department.
The survey is now undertaken every other year and the
2013 survey is due to be published in September 2014.
Class Sizes: Bassetlaw
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what the average class size was in (a)
secondary and (b) primary schools in Bassetlaw
constituency in each of the last three years. [154156]
Mr Laws: Data on class sizes in state-funded primary
and secondary schools in England is published as part
of the annual Statistical First Release ’Schools, Pupils
and their Characteristics’. The latest data is for January
2012 and is available on the Department’s website
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schools-pupilsand-their-characteristics-january-2012
The average size of one teacher classes in state-funded
secondary schools in Bassetlaw constituency was: (i)
20.4 pupils in 2010, (ii) 18.4 pupils in 2011, and (iii)
20.0 pupils in 2012.
The average size of one teacher classes in state-funded
primary schools in Bassetlaw constituency was: (i)
24.9 pupils in 2010, (ii) 24.5 pupils in 2011, and (iii) 25.2
pupils in 2012.
Climate Change: Curriculum
Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education if he will make an assessment of the
potential damage to (a) pupils’ education and (b)
efforts to combat climate change that might be caused
by the proposed removal of climate change from the
national curriculum guidelines for key stages one to
three. [154369]

251W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
252W
Elizabeth Truss: The Government’s intention is not
to remove climate change from the national curriculum,
but rather to bolster pupils’ understanding of this important
issue. The new national curriculum will ensure that
pupils develop an understanding of the key concepts
that underpin the study of climate change in both
science and geography.
In geography, pupils will develop an evidence-based
understanding of weather and climate patterns and
processes in key stages 2 and 3. In science primary
school pupils will be taught the key concepts that
underpin meteorology and climate change science, before
going on to study climate change at key stage 3; in
particular, the production of carbon dioxide by human
activity and its effect on climate.
The new national curriculum will provide a solid
foundation for pupils to engage with climate change
issues in a deep and meaningful way in school, and
should they so choose, through further study of this
important issue at GCSE and beyond.
Curriculum
Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education when he plans to publish draft programmes
of study for Key Stage 4. [155033]
Elizabeth Truss: Draft programmes of study for
citizenship, computing and physical education at key
stage 4 were published for consultation on 7 February
2013. At the same time draft programmes of study for
English, mathematics and science at key stage 4 were
also published for information. We plan to undertake
formal consultation on draft programmes of study for
these subjects in the autumn and finalise them next
year. Schools will start teaching the new programmes of
study from September 2015.
Enfield
Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education how much funding (a) his Department and
(b) each of the non-departmental public bodies for
which he is responsible has allocated to the London
Borough of Enfield local authority in each of the last
five years. [154512]
Mr Laws: The following table provides the total
funding that has been allocated by the Department in
each of the last five years:
£ million
2008-09 252.9
2009-10 261.9
2010-11 268.5
2011-12 264.1
2012-13 317.7
The figures for 2012-13 include grants allocated by
the Education Funding Agency. The information for
each of the non-departmental public bodies is not
readily available and could be compiled only at
disproportionate cost.
Free School Meals: Bassetlaw
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what steps he is taking to ensure that
children living in poverty in (a) the UK and (b)
Bassetlaw constituency receive free school meals.
[154149]
Mr Laws: The Government recognises the benefits of
healthy school meals and is committed to continuing to
provide free school meals to those pupils who need
them most. Our priority is to make sure that the most
disadvantaged children are able to get a nutritious free
school meal.
We are working to encourage all families who meet
the criteria to register for free school meals. We want
disadvantaged children to benefit from a nutritious
meal, and their schools to be able to receive pupil
premium funding to help raise disadvantaged pupils’
attainment.
Free school meals are not compulsory and there are
many reasons why a family may choose not to claim a
free school meal to which they are entitled. The fear of
being stigmatised can prevent many children from taking
a free school meal, but we have made progress in
addressing this. For example, many schools now have
cashless systems and other methods to ensure that it is
not obvious which pupils are receiving a free school
lunch. The Department for Education’s eligibility checking
service, used by local authorities, has also made it much
easier and quicker to check anonymously which families
are entitled to free school meals. Free school meal
take-up in England increased by 60,000 between 2010
and 2012.
Freedom of Information
Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what proportion of Freedom of
Information requests submitted to his Department
since May 2010 remained unanswered after (a) 20, (b)
40 and (c) 60 working days of their receipt. [154076]
Elizabeth Truss: The Ministry of Justice collates and
publishes figures on Freedom of Information (FOI)
performance across central Government Departments
on a quarterly basis, most recently up to December
2012 1 . The Department for Education’s performance
on FOI requests since December 2012 will be included
in future quarterly reports.
1
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-ofjustice/series/government-foi-statistics
Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what recent discussions he has had with the
Information Commissioner on his Department’s
compliance with the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. [154620]
Elizabeth Truss: The Secretary of State for Education,
my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath
(Michael Gove), has had no recent discussions with the
Information Commissioner on his Department’s
compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

253W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
254W
G4S
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what the current level of expenditure by his
Department is on contracts with G4S; and how much
was spent by his Department on contracts with G4S in
each year since 2008. [154550]
Elizabeth Truss: The Department’s procurement records
indicate that we have not contracted with G4S in the
last 10 years. Additional searches for companies linked
to G4S, specifically Group 4 and Securicor, also indicate
there were no contracts with these company names.
GCSE
Simon Hart: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education if he will issue guidance on the assessment
of GCSE practical work and fieldwork in subjects
including science and geography; and if he will make a
statement. [154088]
Elizabeth Truss: Currently, science practical work
and geography fieldwork are assessed by controlled
assessment, a form of internal assessment. The
government’s response to its public consultation on
reforming key stage 4 qualifications set out that internal
assessment should be kept to a minimum in new GCSEs
and used only where there is a compelling case to do so.
The response accepted that some aspects of assessment
lend themselves less easily to externally marked
examinations.
The Government will publish draft subject content
requirements for consultation shortly, alongside Ofqual’s
consultation on regulatory requirements for new GCSEs.
Together, those requirements will set the framework for
the development of the new GCSEs, including the
assessment of practical work and fieldwork.
Heart Diseases: First Aid
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education if he will make the teaching of cardio
pulmonary resuscitation skills a mandatory part of the
national curriculum. [154786]
Elizabeth Truss: Our proposals for the new national
curriculum were published for consultation on 7 February,
and the consultation closed on 16 April. The proposals
are based on the principle that the national curriculum
should set out a body of essential knowledge that
children should be expected to acquire in key subjects
during the course of their school career.
We are reviewing the consultation responses, including
those from organisations and individuals supporting
the inclusion of emergency life-saving skills, and will
publish a final version of the new national curriculum
later in the year.
Overseas Students: Bahamas
David Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what programmes there are to encourage
school students from the Commonwealth of the
Bahamas to study in the UK; and if he will make a
statement. [154726]
Matthew Hancock: This is a matter for individual
schools. Through its Education UK website, the British
Council provides information about boarding school
opportunities for those interested in studying in the
UK.
Publications
Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education how much his Department spent on
subscriptions to academic journals published by (a)
Reed-Elsevier, (b) Wiley-Blackwell, (c) Springer and
(d) any other academic publisher in each of the last
five years. [154492]
Elizabeth Truss: The Department for Education
subscribes to a variety of journals from a range of
academic publishers. With one or two exceptions, all
our journal subscriptions are for academic journals.
Departmental subscriptions are to journal titles, rather
than to individual publishers, and as titles frequently
change publisher it is difficult to provide the information
in the format requested. Also, purchasing has been
devolved to business and policy teams throughout the
department and there are a range of purchasing routes.
The disproportionate cost threshold would be exceeded
if all business and policy teams in the Department were
contacted to retrieve and identify all academic journal
subscriptions by publisher.
However, from information held centrally for journals
subscribed to from the subscriptions agent and aggregator,
the total cost of journal subscriptions for each of the
last five financial years was:
Financial year Costs of subscription (£)
2012-13 21,664.77
2011-12 17,294.01
2010-11 50,128.00
2009-10 41,849.33
2008-09 52,000.00
Vocational Training
Caroline Dinenage: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what budget his Department has allocated
to the Traineeships programme; and what information
his Department holds on funding for that programme
from other sources. [154371]
Matthew Hancock: The Framework for Delivery 1 ,
which we published on 9 May 2013, confirmed that
traineeships for 16-19 year olds will be part of 16-19
study programmes and will be funded on the same
basis. Traineeships will be funded through the Education
Funding Agency or, in the case of 16-19 apprenticeship
providers, through the Skills Funding Agency.
Traineeships will be a demand-led programme. The
number of places funded will reflect the number of
employers and education and training providers who
choose to offer a place and the number of eligible young
people who wish to take one.
1
www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-youngpeople-to-develop-the-skills-for-apprenticeships-andsustainable-employment-framework-for-delivery

255W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
256W
Mr Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education with reference to paragraph 11 of
Traineeships: Supporting young people to develop the
skills for apprenticeships and sustainable employment:
Framework for Delivery published on 9 May 2013, how
many existing training programmes the Government
estimates will (a) cease or (b) be subsumed into the
new traineeship scheme; and which programmes are
under consideration. [155281]
Matthew Hancock: Our intention is for traineeships
to simplify the current policy landscape and make it
easier for young people and employers to navigate. As
traineeships develop we will look to subsume or cease
similar existing training programmes in order to simplify
the system. Decisions on whether to cease or subsume
existing programmes will be taken in due course.
Mr Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education with reference to part D of Traineeships:
Framework for Delivery, published 9 May 2013, what
the annual cost of the traineeships programme will be
in each of the next three financial years; whether
additional funding will be made available to fund the
new traineeships programme; how much funding from
existing programmes will be diverted to fund new
traineeships programme; and how any such funding
will be divided between employers and training
providers. [155292]
Matthew Hancock: Traineeships will be a demand-led
programme. The number of places funded will reflect
the number of eligible employers and education and
training providers who choose to offer places and the
number of eligible young people who wish to take one.
The Framework for Delivery confirmed that traineeships
for 16 to 19-year-olds will be part of 16-19 Study
Programmes and will be funded on the same basis.
Traineeships will be funded through the Education Funding
Agency or, in the case of 16-19 apprenticeship providers,
through the Skills Funding Agency. Employers have
also had the opportunity to bid for traineeship funding
through the second round of the Employer Ownership
of Skills Pilots. Applications are now being assessed. A
formal announcement on Round 2 winners will be
made later in the year.
Mr Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education with reference to paragraph 87 of
Traineeships: Framework for Delivery, published
9 May 2013, what steps he will take to prevent
providers from abusing the system by recruiting young
people who are already prepared for employment or an
apprenticeship in order to secure the funding for a full
six month course. [155293]
Matthew Hancock: The Framework for Delivery specifies
that young people are not eligible for traineeships if
they are already ready to start an apprenticeship or if
they are already employed.
In 2013-14, the delivery of traineeships will be limited
to those providers who have achieved an Ofsted inspection
grade of outstanding or good. We expect these providers
to offer a high-quality experience targeted only at those
who are eligible for the programme.
This is the first year of the national rollout of traineeships,
and we will monitor the delivery of the programme to
ensure that providers are focusing on eligible young
people. We will continue to develop and improve the
programme over the coming years, and to help with that
process we intend to commission an external evaluation
of the programme in its first years of operation.
Mr Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education with reference to Traineeships: Framework
for Delivery, published 9 May 2013, what estimate he
has made of the (a) likely level of uptake among
employers in providing traineeships and (b) number of
placements that will be required to meet anticipated
demand from young people in each of the next three
years. [155294]
Matthew Hancock: We received a positive response to
our traineeships discussion paper (January 2013) from
employers and employer representatives. We know that
many businesses are keen to support young people to
gain the skills and experience that will help them make
excellent future employees.
The National Apprenticeship Service will be working
with employers to ensure that there are sufficient traineeship
opportunities to meet the demand from the number of
eligible young people.
Mr Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education with reference to paragraph 18 of
Traineeships Framework for Delivery, published 9 May
2013, how many providers will be eligible to provide
traineeships in 2013-14; which areas will not have any
eligible traineeship providers in 2013-14; how he will
ensure that all areas of the country have access to one
or more traineeship providers after 2013-14; when he
expects to achieve nationwide coverage of traineeship
providers; and what safeguards he will put in place to
ensure low quality providers do not enter the
traineeships market. [155295]
Matthew Hancock: In 2013/14, the delivery of
traineeships will be limited to those providers who have
achieved an Ofsted inspection grade of Outstanding or
Good. This will help ensure that traineeships are only
delivered by quality providers in the first year of national
rollout. Where there is no eligible provider in a location,
we will support efforts to ensure that Outstanding and
Good provision becomes available in that area.
We aim to reduce the requirement for traineeship
providers to have achieved certain Ofsted inspection
grades as the programme becomes established. We will
confirm arrangements for 2014/15 over the next year.
The primary measure of success for traineeships will be
securing positive outcomes for participants and we
intend to hold providers to account against this. We will
develop success and destination measures for traineeships
which we aim to publish and use for accountability
purposes from 2015/16.
Young People: Carers
Lucy Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what guidance he currently provides to
schools to support pupils who might be young carers.
[154259]

257W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
258W
Mr Timpson: Several pieces of advice to schools offer
guidance on how to support pupils who are young
carers, for example advice on issuing no-notice detentions
and non-statutory guidance to school sixth forms on
making discretionary 16-19 bursary awards. Ofsted also
take an interest in support offered to vulnerable students,
including young carers during inspections.
We have also made our online training package to
increase awareness of young carers’ issues among teachers
and school staff available on the websites of Carers
Trust and The Children’s Society. My Department has
provided funding to The Children’s Society for four
years to promote that training alongside many other
school resources and examples of best practice to local
authorities and their statutory and voluntary sector
partners.
The Department of Health have also recently announced
plans to train school nurses to be champions for young
carers. They will speak up on young carers’ behalf and
help head teachers and governors decide how best to
support them at school.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS
Apprentices
Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking
to enable young people with an offer of a farriery
apprenticeship in 2013-14 to take up those
apprenticeships following the withdrawal of funding by
the National Farriery Training Association. [155289]
Matthew Hancock: All current learners training with
the National Farriery Training Association will be funded
to complete their qualification. The Skills Funding
Agency is in active discussion with the Farriers Registration
Council and colleges that deliver farrier training to
secure provision through alternative delivery that ensures
high quality training and apprentice safety and welfare.
Buildings
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what the total running
costs were for each building used, owned or rented in
central London by his Department, its agencies and
non-departmental public bodies in each of the last
three financial years. [154231]
Jo Swinson: The total running costs for each building
used, owned or rented in central London by BIS in each
of the last three financial years were as follows:
£ million
Building 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
1 Victoria Street, SW1 19.68 20.86 20.64
10 Victoria Street, SW1 1.92 2.20 2.09
Kingsgate House, Victoria
8.75 8.21 —
Street, SW1
151 Buckingham Palace
17.55 14.70 12.95
Road, SW1
Victoria House,
0.188 0.796 0.813
Southampton Row, WC1
21 Bloomsbury Street, WC1 — — 3.47
7-10 Chandos St, W1 0.547 — —
The figures are net running cost figures. The income
received from letting space to other organisations has
been deducted. Information for non-departmental public
bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only
at disproportionate cost.
I have approached the chief executives of the
Department’s executive agencies (Insolvency Service,
Companies House, National Measurement Office,
Intellectual Property Office, UK Space Agency, Ordnance
Survey, Met Office, Land Registry and the Skills Funding
Agency) and they will respond to the hon. Member
directly.
Letter from Tim Moss, dated 10 May 2013:
I am replying on behalf of Companies House to your Parliamentary
Question tabled 8 May 2013, to the Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills, UIN 154231.
Companies House maintains one office in London, and its
total running costs in each of the last three years were as follows.
2010/11 239,295
2011/12 213,392
2012/13 230,889
Letter from Dr Richard Judge, dated 10 May 2013:
The Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills has asked me to reply to your question, what the total
running costs were for each building used, owned or rented in
central London by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental
public bodies in each of the last three financial years.
The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills.
For the Insolvency Service the relevant figures are:
£
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
21 Bloomsbury Street
3,069,531 2,904,535 610,653
(vacated June 2012)
4 Abbey Orchard Street — — 1,752,715
Total 3,069,531 2,904,535 2,363,368
Letter from John Alty, dated 13 May 2013:
I am responding in respect of the Intellectual Property Office
to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 8 May 2013, to the
Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills asking what the total running costs were for each building
used, owned or rented in central London by his Department, its
agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last
three financial years.
The Intellectual Property Office has maintained a small presence
in London renting part of buildings in Abbey Orchard Street
after moving from Bloomsbury Street on 21 May 2012.
Abbey Orchard
Street
Bloomsbury
Street
£
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
— — 988,000
822,000 788,000 106,000
The 2012/13 costs for Abby Orchard street include extensive
fitting out costs which will not recur.
Letter from John Hirst, dated 10 May 2013:
I am replying on behalf of the Met Office to your Parliamentary
Question tabled on 8 May 2013, UIN 154231 to the Secretary of
State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
£

259W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
260W
The total running costs for each building used, owned or
rented in central London by the Met Office were £708,513 in
2010-11, £650,209 in 2011-12, and £400,839 in 2012-13.
I hope this helps.
Letter from David Parker, dated 10 May 2013:
Thank you for your question addressed to the Secretary of
State for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills
asking what the total running costs were for each building used,
owned or rented in central London by his Department, its agencies
and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three
financial years.
The UK Space Agency became an Executive Agency of the
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills on the 1st April
2011.
The UK Space Agency has access to an area within the
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills for staff requiring
working space in London. The UK Space Agency has not owned
or rented any buildings in central London since the 1st April
2011.
Letter from Dr Vanessa Lawrence CB, dated 10 May
2013:
As Director General and Chief Executive of Ordnance Survey,
I have been asked to respond to your Parliamentary Question
asking the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills,
“what the total running costs were for each building used, owned
or rented in central London by his Department, its agencies and
non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three financial
years”.
Ordnance Survey rents space in the National Audit Office
Building in Buckingham Palace Road, having moved from
accommodation in Vauxhall on 1 January 2012.
Total costs in the last three financial years, including rent rates,
services and utilities, were as follows:
2012-13: £114,839.51 (first full year at Buckingham Palace
Road)
2011-12: £73,598.97
2010-11: £39,838.43
I hope this information is helpful.
Letter from Kim Thorneywork, dated 10 May 2013:
Thank you for your question in asking the Secretary of State
for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the total running costs
were for each building used, owned or rented in central London
by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public
bodies in each of the last three financial years
Please be advised that the figures in the table detail the running
costs for buildings in Central London paid for by the Skills
Funding Agency from April 2010 to March 2013 by building and
year.
The budget for 2010-11 was allocated to Skills Funding Agency
and when Skills Funding Agency and YPLA split premises,
leaving Centrepoint, it was agreed that the Skills Funding Agency
would pay for the cost in that year for YPLA to occupy Sanctuary
Buildings.
Costs per building 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Centrepoint 610,758 0 0
Sanctuary Buildings 333,000 0 0
Kingsgate 905,688 0 0
1 Victoria Street 0 725,188 748,870
Total 1,849,446 725,188 748,870
Letter from Malcolm Dawson, dated 10 May 2013:
I write on behalf of Land Registry in response to Parliamentary
Question 154231 tabled on 8 May 2013 which asked the following:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and
Skills, what the total running costs were for each building used,
owned or rented in central London by his Department, its agencies
and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three
financial years.
FY
2010-11 1,244,421
2011-12 95,130
2012-13 27,575
Total 1,367,127
I hope you find this information useful.
Letter from Peter Mason, dated 9 May 2013:
I am responding in respect of the National Measurement
Office (NMO) to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 8 May
2013, asking the Secretary of State, Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills (BIS) about the total running costs for each
building used, owned or rented in central London by NMO in
each of the last three financial years.
NMO does not use, own or rent any buildings in central
London. We do not consider Teddington to be in central London.
Employment Schemes: Corby
Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what jobs initiatives his
Department is supporting in Corby constituency.
[154175]
Matthew Hancock: We are supporting jobs in Corby
by tackling the record deficit to keep interest rates low,
tackling barriers to employment, radically reforming
education and expanding apprenticeships, which provide
individuals of all ages with pathways into employment.
Final data for 2011/12 show that there were 1,190
apprenticeship starts in Corby parliamentary constituency,
up by 25.4% on 2010/11. Provisional data for the first
six months of 2012/13 (August 2012 to January 2013)
show that there were 610 apprenticeship starts in Corby
parliamentary constituency.
£1.2 million has been awarded this year to the
Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership from the regional
growth fund to support businesses in the high performance
technologies sector and 32 Corby businesses have received
a variety of UK Trade and Investment programmes and
services support between July 2011 and April 2013.
In April 2012 we launched an online tool called
“Employing staff for the first time” helping to make it
easier for businesses taking on their first member of
staff. Through the Business in You campaign we are
supporting and encouraging people to start or grow
their businesses and employ more staff, and small and
medium-sized enterprises can access support and advice
through
www.gov.uk
the new home for Government services and information
online.
A huge number of further measures are taking place
to support jobs in Corby and elsewhere to help Britain
compete.
G4S
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what the current level
of expenditure by his Department is on contracts with
G4S; and how much was spent by his Department on
contracts with G4S in each year since 2008. [154545]

261W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
262W
Jo Swinson: The following expenditure with G4S is
recorded for the Department (including UKTI Admin).
Financial year £
2008/9 57,019
2009/10 5,074
2010/11 92,001
2011/12 72,391
2012/13 10,414
2013/14 (up to 8 May 2013) Nil
This data excludes NDPB’s as this information is not
held centrally.
Insolvency
Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills if he will being forward
legislative proposals relating to the Insolvency Service
for the purposes of allowing (a) individuals or (b)
organisations to request, upon the receipt of evidence
and for an acceptable reason, investigation of an
individual’s ability to act as a director; and if he will
make a statement. [155196]
Jo Swinson: The Government believes that new legislation
is unnecessary because these powers of investigation
already exist.
When a company goes into administration, insolvent
liquidation or administrative receivership, the insolvency
practitioner has a legal duty to report confidentially to
The Insolvency Service about the conduct of the directors.
If misconduct is alleged the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills has the power to seek
the director’s disqualification where it is believed to be
in the public interest.
If a company is subject to any of these formal insolvency
procedures, the insolvency practitioner is the person
best placed to collate and report any evidence of
misconduct. But any individual or organisation with
evidence of misconduct by the company’s directors can
also bring that evidence to the attention of the insolvency
practitioner so that it can be taken into account when
the insolvency practitioner reports to the Secretary of
State, or can produce that evidence directly to the
Insolvency Service acting on behalf of the Secretary of
State (BIS).
The Insolvency Service also has discretionary powers
under the Companies Acts to conduct inquiries on
behalf of the Secretary of State where it appears that
there has been misconduct in relation to the affairs of
any company, including those not subject to formal
insolvency. Any individual or organisation with evidence
of misconduct should send full details of their complaint
and all the supporting evidence to:
Intelligence Hub
Investigations and Enforcement Services
The Insolvency Service
3 rd Floor Cannon House
18 Priory Queensway
Birmingham B4 6FD
(e-mail: intelligence.live@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk)
The Secretary of State has powers to use information
arising from such inquiries, to seek the disqualification
of the directors of the company, petition the court to
wind up the company or bring criminal proceedings.
Land Use: Wales
Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what recent assessment
(a) he and (b) the Land Registry has made of the (i)
Ysciefiog and Nannerch Inclosure Act 1800 and (ii)
Whitford Inclosure Act 1800; and whether he has any
plans to bring forward proposals repeal or amend
either Act. [154650]
Michael Fallon: The Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member
for Twickenham (Vince Cable), has no plans to bring
forward such proposals. Land Registry’s only concern
is with the enclosure awards made under the Inclosure
Acts.
Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills how many notification
of interest letters relating to the Land Registry
Act 2002 have been sent to (a) Flintshire residents, (b)
Delyn constituency residents and (c) residents of the
parishes of (i) Cilcain, (ii) Ysciefiog and (iii) Nannerch
in 2013 to date. [154651]
Michael Fallon: Land Registry estimates that it has
sent out approximately 1,200 notices to date to property
owners in Flintshire. The notices are to inform the
owners of applications to the registrar for the registration
of title to mines and minerals.
The Delyn constituency appears covers a similar
area. The three parishes mentioned are all within Flintshire.
But it is not been possible for Land Registry to provide
estimates of the number of notices sent to the residents
of each of them.
Overseas Students: Bahamas
David Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what programmes there
are to encourage university students from the
Commonwealth of the Bahamas to study in the UK;
and if he will make a statement. [154727]
Mr Willetts: The Government recognises the important
contribution that international students make to the
UK and we welcome all genuine international students
to study at our world-class academic institutions. There
is no cap on the number of international students
coming to study in the UK.
In addition to promoting UK education through a
range of channels, including the Education UK website,
managed by British Council and in-country partners,
this Department funds a small number of eligible students
from the Bahamas through the Commonwealth Scholarship
Commission.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
will continue to work with partners representing the
UK higher education sector to ensure that students
looking to study in the UK are aware of the full range
of opportunities available to them.
Supermarkets: Competition
Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking
to ensure fair treatment by supermarkets of farmers
who supply them with goods. [155247]

263W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
264W
Jo Swinson: The Government introduced the Groceries
Code Adjudicator Act 2013, which creates an Adjudicator
to enforce the Groceries Supply Code of Practice and to
ensure that supermarkets treat their direct suppliers
fairly and lawfully. The Code covers specific practices
between the 10 UK retailers with an annual groceries
turnover of £1 billion and their direct suppliers. Ms Christine
Tacon has been appointed as Groceries Code Adjudicator-
Designate.
The Adjudicator will be able to receive complaints in
confidence from any source. She will conduct investigations
into potential breaches of the Code, and can impose
sanctions against retailers if necessary. The Adjudicator
will also arbitrate between retailers and their direct
suppliers.
The Act is due to come into force at the end of June
2013, and the Adjudicator will publish draft guidance
for consultation shortly thereafter.
Zoos
Stephen Mosley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what discussions he has
had with representatives of the zoo industry on the
investment of that industry’s profits into high-profile
capital projects. [154068]
Michael Fallon: The Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member
for Twickenham (Vince Cable), has held no discussions
with the zoo industry.
CABINET OFFICE
Average Earnings: Clwyd
Susan Elan Jones: To ask the Minister for the
Cabinet Office what the average salary in Clwyd South
constituency was for (a) women and (b) men in each
of the last five years for which figures are available.
[154120]
Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the
responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have
asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Glen Watson, dated May 2013:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I
have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question
asking what the average salary in Clwyd South constituency was
for (a) women and (b) men in each of the last five years for which
figures are available. (154120)
The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), carried
out in April each year, is the most comprehensive source of
earnings information in the United Kingdom. Annual levels of
earnings are estimated from ASHE, and are provided for employees
on adult rates of pay, who have been in the same job for more
than a year.
The following tables show the median and mean gross annual
earnings for employee jobs in Clwyd South for all males and
females for each year from 2008 to 2012.
Median and mean gross annual earnings (£) for employee jobs 1 in Clwyd South
constituency 2 for all males and all females from 2008-12
Median
Mean
Male Female Male Female
2008 3 x x **22,376 **13,935
2009 3 **23,759 x *24,284 **14,363
2010 3 **23,003 x **24,893 **13,090
2011 3 **23,650 x **26,800 **13,614
Median and mean gross annual earnings (£) for employee jobs 1 in Clwyd South
constituency 2 for all males and all females from 2008-12
Median
Mean
Male Female Male Female
2011 4 *23,317 x **26,357 **13,688
2012 4 **21,630 x **22,535 **13,744
1
Employees on adult rates who have been in the same job for more than one
year.
2
Parliamentary constituency.
3
Results based on Standard Occupational Classification 2000.
4
Results based on Standard Occupational Classification 2010.
Guide to Quality:
The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of a figure, the smaller
the CV value the higher the quality. The true value is likely to lie within +/- twice
the CV—for example, for an average of 200 with a CV of 5%, we would expect
the population average to be within the range 180 to 220.
Key:
CV 5% and 10% and

265W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
266W
Ireland and (e) Scotland contain (i) two adults, who
are both the parents of the children, (ii) three or more
adults, two of whom are the parents of the children
and (iii) only one adult, who is the parent of the
children. [154065]
Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the
responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have
asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Glen Watson, dated May 2013:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I
have been asked to respond to your question on how many
households with children in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) England,
(c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) Scotland contain (i) two
adults, who are both the parents of the children, (ii) three or more
adults, two of whom are the parents of the children and (iii) only
one adult, who is the parent of the children [154065]
The Office for National Statistics does not routinely publish
estimates of the number of households containing both adults
and dependent children according to whether the adult(s) in the
household are biological parents of the children or not. Such
analysis is more complex than the question suggests—for example
in a two adult household with dependent children, there may be a
combination of (a) children who are the biological children of
both adults, (b) children who are the biological children of one
adult, (c) children who are the biological children of the second
adult, and (d) children who are not the biological child of either
adult. The latter may include foster and adopted children.
The annual ONS publication ‘Families and Households’:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/familiesand-households/2012/index.html
provides information on households with dependent children in
the UK but does not distinguish between biological children, step
children and other children. For example in the UK in 2012 there
were 5.6 million households containing a couple (two adults) and
one or more dependent children, 1.9 million households containing
a lone parent (one adult) and one or more dependent children and
0.3 million multifamily households, some of which will contain
dependent children (Table 7). It is not possible to readily identify
from current survey sources whether adults living in households
with children are the biological parents of those children.
The 2011 Census collected detailed information on household
composition but to date no information on households with
stepchildren has been published (that would allow the derivation
of households with biological children only). The detailed information
requested would require a commissioned table and would not be
available until late 2013 at the earliest.
The 2011 Census Key Statistics table KS105 published by ONS
provides information on household composition in England,
Wales and more detailed geographies:
http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/
datasetList.do?JSAllowed=true&Function=&%24ph=60&
CurrentPageId=60&step=1&CurrentTreeIndex=-
1&searchString=&datasetFamilyId=2489&Next.x=17&Next.y=10
Table KS105 shows that in England and Wales combined in
2011 there were 4.5 million couple households with dependent
children, 1.7 million lone parent households with dependent
children and 0.6 million ‘other’ types of household with dependent
children (the latter includes households with three or more adults).
Similar 2011 Census data for Northern Ireland published by
the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency show that
there were 155 thousand couple households with dependent children,
64 thousand lone parent households with dependent children and
19 thousand ‘other’ types of household with dependent children:
http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/
Census%202011_Excel/2011/Household%20Composition
_KS105NI%20(statistical%20geographies).XLS
The Census figures above relate to all households with dependent
children, not just those where the children are biological children
of the adults in the household. Comparable Census information
is not yet available for Scotland, or the United Kingdom.
Government Departments: Cybercrime
Chi Onwurah: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office what estimate his Department has made of the
costs of retrofitting cyber security to existing
government systems. [154689]
Miss Chloe Smith [holding answer 13 May 2013]:
This Government sees cyber security as an integral part
of the process of building government’s ICT systems
rather than as an add-on.
Unfortunately this Government is burdened with legacy
ICT systems inherited from the previous Administration.
For that reason we are working to reform ICT including
through the introduction of new central controls to
ensure greater consistency and integration, the creation
of a common ICT infrastructure, and the adoption of
compulsory open standards.
Cyber Security is not add-on to systems but it is
achieved through a set of measures including personnel
and process measures as well as hardware and software
protections. The cyber security of Government systems
also extends to suppliers and any related supply chain
and therefore the costs requested cannot be singled out.
Influenza
Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office on how many occasions the Civil Contingencies
Committee has met to discuss the effects of influenza
pandemics in the last 12 months; and if he will make a
statement. [155212]
Miss Chloe Smith: Following a review of Cabinet
committees in May 2010, the Civil Contingencies
Committee was dissolved with its role assumed by a
sub-committee of the newly formed National Security
Council looking at a wider range of threats and hazards
facing the United Kingdom. Its composition and terms
of reference can be found on the Cabinet Office website
at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/83739/
Cabinet_Committee_Membership_Lists_Oct-2012.pdf
In line with the practice of previous Administrations
information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet
Committees is generally not disclosed.
Internet: Glasgow
John Robertson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office (1) what recent discussions he has had with
Carnegie UK regarding its report, Across the Divide:
Tackling digital exclusion in Glasgow; [154610]
(2) what recent discussions he has had with members
of the Scottish Government regarding digital exclusion
in (a) Glasgow North West constituency, (b) Glasgow
and (c) Scotland. [154611]
Mr Hurd: My Officials in the Government Digital
Service (GDS) have written to Carnegie UK and would
welcome the chance to discuss its report.
The Scottish Government is represented on the
Government’s Assisted Digital Programme Board and
on the Cross Departmental Digital Leaders Network.
As under the previous Administration, details of
such meetings are not disclosed.

267W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
268W
Pay
Mr Hepburn: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office how many people in (a) Jarrow constituency,
(b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the
UK earn at least £1 million a year. [154081]
Sajid Javid: I have been asked to reply on behalf of
the Treasury.
Number of UK taxpayers with total income of £1 million
and over are published in Table 3.3 ’Distribution of
total income before and after tax by gender, 2010-11’
available on the HMRC website at:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/income-by-year/table3-
3.pdf
Reliable estimates for individuals with total income
over £1 million in Jarrow constituency, South Tyneside
and the North East are not available due to small
sample sizes.
Estimates are based on Survey of Personal Incomes
(SPI) data for 2010-11.
Population
Margaret Curran: To ask the Minister for the
Cabinet Office how many and what proportion of the
residents of each parliamentary constituency in
England and Wales were born in Scotland. [155682]
Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the
responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have
asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Glen Watson, dated May 2013:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I
have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on how
many and what proportion of the residents of each parliamentary
constituency in England and Wales were born in Scotland. 155682
A file containing an extract from 2011 Census Table KS204EW
which provides the information you have requested for Westminster
Parliamentary Constituencies in England and Wales, will be
stored in the Library of the House.
Press: Subscriptions
Jonathan Ashworth: To ask the Minister for the
Cabinet Office how much No. 10 Downing Street spent
on newspapers and periodicals in 2011-12. [154882]
Mr Maude [holding answer 14 May 2013]: The Prime
Minister’s Office is an integral part of the Cabinet
Office.
We do not hold total costs centrally on overall spend
across my Department on periodicals and newspapers.
However, further to my answer of 6 November 2012,
Official Report, column 575W, which detailed payments
through my Department’s central contract to our primary
newspaper supplier, my Department spent a total of
£8,000 in 2011-12 on payments through our central
contract and a further £52,000 over the same period
with our main supplier via other channels.
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
Hazel Blears: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office (1) what steps his Department is taking to
implement the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
in its procurement procedures; and what guidance he
has given to his Department’s executive agencies and
non-departmental public bodies on implementation of
that Act; [154525]
(2) what steps his Office is taking to implement the
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 in its
procurement procedures; [154529]
(3) what steps No. 10 Downing Street is taking to
implement the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
in its procurement procedures. [154538]
Mr Hurd: Since the Public Services (Social Value)
Act 2012 came into force, Cabinet Office has been the
lead department proactively implementing the Act across
Government and the sector:
We have produced a detailed guidance document:
ww.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/79273/
Public_Services_Social_Value_Act_2012_PPN.pdf
to help guide commissioners and procurers;
We are reviewing our internal Cabinet Office procurement
processes to ensure Social Value principles are being considered
and encouraging other departments to do the same; and
We have been working in partnership with Social Enterprise
UK (SEUK) to run a Social Value Campaign, including a series
of joint regional events to help distil key messages across government
and the sector more widely.
In parallel to the above, we have been looking at ways
to make it easier for social enterprises to deliver public
services under the Act:
We have recently launched the Commissioning Academy, a
programme designed to support capable and confident senior
public-sector staff to commission in a way that is sensitive to the
needs of civil society; and
Our Investment Readiness and Contract Readiness Fund supports
the growth of successful social ventures which have the potential
to deliver services and have a positive social impact at scale, but
are not yet in a position to take on repayable finance.
Senior Civil Servants: Pensions
Pamela Nash: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office with reference to the answer of 25 April 2013,
Official Report, column 1097W, on senior civil
servants: pensions, when he plans to disclose the details
of the remuneration rates for all persons in receipt of
Civil Service pensions who are senior civil servants and
those paid by non-departmental public bodies at rates
in excess of the minimum applicable to the senior Civil
Service. [154619]
Miss Chloe Smith: The Cabinet Office does not hold
the information requested. Departments, agencies and
non-departmental public bodies publish information
on the salaries of their senior staff in structure charts
that are published every six months on their websites
linked to:
http://www.data.gov.uk
I can confirm that under the current Civil Service
pension scheme anyone in receipt of a Civil Service
pension and employed in the Civil Service (or any
organisation covered by the scheme) has their pension
abated. This means that their total pay and pension is
limited to the same level of salary that they were earning
in the Civil Service before drawing their pension. Further
information on the abatement rules can be found at:
http://resources.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/
03/WhatisabatementFeb2013.pdf

269W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
270W
Suicide
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office with reference to the Office for National
Statistics (ONS) Statistical Bulletin on Suicides in the
UK, published in January 2013, if he will request the
ONS to cross-classify male suicides in England and
Wales by the calendar-year quarter of their occurrence
in respect of the category, date of death: in 2006 to
2011, and by the calendar-year quarter of their
registration in respect of the category registration date:
in 2006 to 2011. [155620]
Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the
responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have
asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Glen Watson, dated May 2013:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I
have been asked to reply to your recent question asking the Office
for National Statistics to cross-classify male suicides in England
and Wales by the calendar-year quarter of their occurrence in
respect of the category, date of death: in 2006 to 2011, and by the
calendar-year quarter of their registration in respect of the category
registration date: in 2006 to 2011. [155620]
Table 1 provides the number of male deaths where the underlying
cause was suicide, by quarter of death occurrence and quarter of
death registration, in England and Wales, for deaths that occurred
between 2006 and 2011 and were registered between 1 January
2006 and 31 December 2011 (the latest available period). A copy
of Table 1 has been placed in the House of Commons Library,
Due to the length of time it takes to hold an inquest, it can take
months for a suicide to be registered. The latest statistical bulletin
showed that the median registration delay for suicides was 158
days in England and Wales in 2011.
More information on registration delays for other causes can
be found on the ONS website:
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/health-andlife-events/impact-of-registration-delays-on-mortality-statistics/
index.html
Figures for suicides in the United Kingdom, England and
Wales, and regions of England, by age and sex, are published
annually on the ONS website. The latest statistical bulletin also
includes analysis of the impact of registration delays on UK
suicide statistics:
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/allreleases.html?definition=tcm%3A77-29400
TREASURY
Advance Corporation Tax
Dr Whiteford: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer (1) what estimate his Department has made
of the contribution of the abolition of advanced
corporation tax to the reduction in the value of
pension funds; [154632]
(2) how much has been raised by the withdrawal of
advance corporation tax credit on pensions. [154633]
Sajid Javid: No recent assessment has been made of
the impact on pension funds of the withdrawal by the
previous Government in the late 1990s of the payable
dividend tax credit. It is not possible to estimate this
reliably, owing to the length of time that has passed and
the wide range of factors that may have affected pension
funds’ asset base and investment strategy in the intervening
years.
Papers released by the previous Administration on
this issue can be found at:
http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/
20081013114842/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/6469.htm
Banks: Loans
Naomi Long: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect
of the Funding for Lending Scheme on the lending
market in Northern Ireland. [154058]
Greg Clark: The Funding for Lending Scheme (FLS)
was launched to boost bank lending to UK households
and businesses. The scheme is designed to reduce the
funding costs of banks and provide them with a strong
incentive to increase their lending across the UK. The
UK Government is committed to help Northern Irish
businesses grow and will continue to work hard to
support the Northern Irish economy, including in the
area of bank lending. The Government will continue to
update the Northern Ireland Executive as the scheme
progresses.
Banks: Pay
Jim Sheridan: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what assessment he has made of the
potential effects of a tax on bonuses of bank employees
in the UK. [154761]
Greg Clark: The Government has been clear that
banks must act responsibly in setting their pay, and has
taken robust action to tackle unacceptable bank bonuses.
This Government strongly believes that the Bank
Levy, rather than a Bank Payroll Tax, is the best way
forward. The Levy is a permanent tax, designed to raise
over £21½ billion every year. The Levy ensures banks
make a fair contribution in respect of the potential risks
they pose to the UK financial system and wider economy.
Buildings
John Mann: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what the total running costs were for each building
used, owned or rented in central London by his
Department, its agencies and non-departmental public
bodies in each of the last three financial years. [154240]
Sajid Javid: All properties owned, used and rented by
the Department and their total running costs for the
last three years are as follows:
(a) 1 Horse Guards Road, London, is HM Treasury’s HQ
building. Although the Crown owns the freehold, the building
itself is subject to a private finance initiative agreement under a
35-year leaseback arrangement. The annual costs of this agreement
are published under Core Treasury costs in Section 7.1 (for
2010-12) and Section 8.1 (for 2009-11) of the Departments Resource
Accounts available through links on the website at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/dep_perf_reports_index.htm
(b) HMT also occupies space in other Government Department
buildings under MOTOs (Memorandum of Terms of Occupation),
internal documents that record terms of occupation agreed between
two Departments, and pays proportionately for the space it uses.
MOTOs cover space in Downing St and Victoria St, London
SW1 and Albert Embankment, London SE1.
(c) The only leasehold premises are occupied by the Debt
Management Office, part of the HM Treasury group, in Philpot
Lane, London EC3 and held on a lease expiring in 2021. The
monthly cost for 2011-12 was £124.801.
Children: Day Care
Kate Green: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what assessment he has made of the potential effects
on measured child poverty rates of the additional
childcare support announced in the 2013 Budget.
[154209]

271W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
272W
Sajid Javid: The Government will consider the
distributional impacts of the additional child care support
as this policy is developed in detail.
In addition, the Government has sought a wide range
of views as part of a consultation on better measures of
child poverty, which include income but also wider
measures to tackle the root causes of poverty including
worklessness, educational failure and family breakdown.
The consultation has now closed and the Government
will respond in the summer.
Kate Green: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what estimate he has made of the number of
households eligible for the higher rate of childcare
support under universal credit as announced in Budget
2013. [154278]
Steve Webb: I have been asked to reply on behalf of
the Department for Work and Pensions.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to her
previous question number 149974, on 10 April 2013,
Official Report, columns 1174-75W.
Kate Green: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what assessment he has made of the distribution by
income decile of additional gains to families arising
from the additional childcare support announced as
part of Budget 2013. [154279]
Sajid Javid: The Government will consider the
distributional impacts of the additional childcare support
as this policy is developed in detail. The Government
continues to assess the cumulative impacts of all its
measures within the “impacts on Households” annex,
which is published at each fiscal event.
Construction: Scotland
Jim Sheridan: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the
Federation of Master Builders in Scotland on (a)
falling workloads and rising costs and (b) the effects of
these factors on unemployment. [154762]
Sajid Javid: Treasury Ministers and officials engage
with a wide variety of organisations in the public and
private sectors, as part of the process of policy development
and delivery.
The Treasury publishes a list of ministerial meetings
with external organisations. This is available online at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/minister_hospitality.htm
Corporation Tax
John Robertson: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer (1) what recent discussions he has had
regarding corporation tax with (a) RWE Npower, (b)
SSE, (c) EDF, (d) E.ON, (e) British Gas and (f)
Scottish Power; [154590]
(2) what internal discussions his Department has had
regarding the corporation tax payment of (a) RWE
Npower, (b) SSE, (c) EDF, (d) E.ON, (e) British Gas
and (f) Scottish Power. [154589]
Mr Gauke: Treasury Ministers do not hold discussions
on corporation tax payments with companies, nor do
they have access to the details of companies’ or individuals’
tax affairs, as the tax system is administered by HM
Revenue and Customs (HMRC). HMRC has a statutory
duty of taxpayer confidentiality and so cannot disclose
this information to either HM Treasury or to the wider
public, other than in very limited circumstances.
HMRC’s Large Business Service (LBS) directly engages
with the 2,000 largest businesses to develop an in-depth
knowledge of their business model, business and tax
issues, appetite for risk in tax planning, and internal
governance. The LBS includes a dedicated unit of tax
professionals for managing tax risks in the utility sector.
Economic Growth
Nadine Dorries: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what research his Department has (a)
commissioned and (b) evaluated on any relationship
between socio-economic class and economic growth.
[154214]
Sajid Javid: HM Treasury regularly conducts
distributional analysis of the impact of its policies on
different household groups. The distributional analysis
is published in HM Treasury’s distributional analysis
annex, available on the HM Treasury website.
Enfield
Nick de Bois: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer how much funding (a) his Department and
(b) each of the non-departmental public bodies for
which he is responsible has allocated to the London
Borough of Enfield local authority in each of the last
five years. [154521]
Sajid Javid: The Treasury and its non departmental
public bodies have not made any payments to the
London borough of Enfield county in any of the last
five years.
European Court of Human Rights
Chris Heaton-Harris: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer under which Vote costs and damages
ordered by the European Court of Human Rights are
paid. [154641]
Mrs Grant: I have been asked to reply on behalf of
the Ministry of Justice.
It is for the lead Department with responsibility for
the policy which is the subject of the judgment to pay
the costs and damages awarded by the European Court
of Human Rights from departmental funds.
In the case of a judgment against the UK that awards
costs and damages and which is the responsibility of the
Ministry of Justice, the payment would be made from
voted funds under subhead A (Policy, Corporate Services
and Associated Offices) as reflected in the Ministry of
Justice Main or Supplementary Estimate.
G4S
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what the current level of expenditure by his
Department is on contracts with G4S; and how much
was spent by his Department on contracts with G4S in
each year since 2008. [154561]

273W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
274W
Sajid Javid: HM Treasury does not currently hold
any contracts with G4S.
HM Treasury spend with G4S since 2008:
Financial year £ 1
2008-09 6,199
2009-10 235,296
2010-11 8,905
2011-12 0
2012-13 0
1
Excluding VAT.
Goldman Sachs
Paul Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what steps have been taken by HM Revenue and
Customs to recover the interest owed by Goldman
Sachs on the tax bill which it delayed paying. [154816]
Mr Gauke: HMRC has a statutory duty to maintain
taxpayer confidentiality and may not disclose information
unless the limited and controlled circumstances set out
in the statute creating HMRC apply.
Housing: Repairs and Maintenance
Jim Sheridan: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects
of falling workloads and rising costs in the domestic
repair, maintenance and improvement market on
unemployment in (a) Paisley and Renfrewshire North
constituency, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK. [154763]
Sajid Javid: In the three months to March 2013, the
unemployment rate was 7.8% in the UK, and 7.3% in
Scotland. Over the year, employment in the UK has
increased by 434,000 while unemployment has fallen
92,000. Scotland had the largest increase in regional
employment, increasing by 30,000; while unemployment
has fallen by 21,000. The unemployment rate was 8.1%
in Paisley and Renfrewshire North in 2012.
The non-seasonally adjusted value of the repair and
maintenance on housing in construction output in Great
Britain increased by 1.9% in the year to March 2013. In
Scotland it increased by 4.1% in 2012. This data is not
available at the constituency level.
Budget 2013 announced a range of measures which
will help support the construction industry and increase
activity in the housing market. Furthermore, the
construction sector is one of the industries identified in
the Government’s Industrial Strategy, announced in
September 2012, which aims to maintain and enhance
the UK’s global position in 11 key sectors.
Income Tax
Mr Hepburn: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what the annual cost or benefit to the public
purse will be of reducing the additional rate of income
tax to 45 per cent. [154079]
Mr Gauke: Estimated cost of reducing the additional
rate of income tax to 45% is available on the Government
website, Budget 2013, table 2.2:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2013-
documents
Mr Hepburn: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer how many people in (a) Jarrow
constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East
and (d) the UK will benefit from the reduced
additional rate of income tax from 50 per cent to 45 per
cent. [154080]
Mr Gauke: The information is as follows:
(a) (b) Data on the number of individuals benefiting
from the reduction in additional rate at parliamentary
constituency level are not available. This is because the
projections would not be reliable at this level.
(c) Regional population projections on the number of
additional rate taxpayers in the North East can be
found in table 2.2 ‘Number of income taxpayers, by
country’, on HMRC’s website:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-statistics/table2-2.pdf
Statistics indicate that there will be around 3,000
additional rate taxpayers in the North East in 2013-14.
(d) Population projections on number of additional
rate taxpayers in the UK can be found in table 2.1
‘Number of individual income taxpayers’, on HMRC’s
website:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-statistics/table2-1.pdf
Statistics indicate that there will be around 287,000
additional rate taxpayers in the UK in 2013-14.
The projected estimates are based upon the 2010-11
Survey of Personal Incomes using economic assumptions
consistent with the OBR’s March 2013 economic and
fiscal outlook.
Mr Bain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
how many households containing at least one child and
only one adult earning (a) more and (b) less than the
threshold for income there will be in (i) the UK, (ii)
each nation and each region of the UK and (iii) each
parliamentary constituency in the UK in each of the
next four financial years. [154172]
Mr Gauke: The following table gives the number of
households with children and one adult, by the position
of this adult in relation to the personal allowance, in
2013-14 and 2014-15. Figures are not available for (a)
geographical breakdowns smaller than the UK; and
(b) 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Earning below the
personal allowance
(including nonworking
adults)
2013-14 (Personal
allowance = £9,440)
2014-15 (Personal
allowance = £10,000)
845,000 854,000
Earning above the
509,000 500,000
personal allowance
All 1,354,000 1,354,000
Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000; totals may
not sum due to rounding.
Income Tax: Warrington
Helen Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
how many people in (a) Warrington and (b)
Warrington North constituency will see a reduction in
the additional rate of income tax from 50 per cent to
45 per cent. [155222]

275W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
276W
Mr Gauke: Data on the number of individuals benefiting
from the reduction in additional rate at local authority
and parliamentary constituency level are not available.
This is because the projections would not be reliable.
National Insurance Contributions: Peterborough
Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely
effect of employment allowance on (a) businesses and
(b) charities in Peterborough constituency; and if he
will make a statement. [154089]
Mr Gauke: Constituency level estimates of those
likely to benefit from the employment allowance are not
available. In total, up to 1.25 million employers will
benefit from the allowance, with over 90% of this benefit
going to small businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
Hazel Blears: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to
implement the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
in its procurement procedures; and what guidance he
has given to his Department’s executive agencies and
non-departmental public bodies on implementation of
that Act. [154541]
Sajid Javid: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer which
I gave to her on 14 May 2013, Official Report, column
484.
Publications
Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer how much his Department spent on
subscriptions to academic journals published by (a)
Reed-Elsevier, (b) Wiley-Blackwell, (c) Springer and
(d) any other academic publisher in each of the last
five years. [154503]
Sajid Javid: The Department has had no subscriptions
to any of the academic journals that you refer to,
Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell and Springer, over the
last five years.
However, the Department has used the academic
publishers EBSCO and PROquest over the last five
years, and the total spend with these suppliers was
£63,089 covering the period from April 2008 to March
2013.
Revenue and Customs
John Mann: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what the average length of call waiting time for those
telephoning HM Revenue and Customs from Bassetlaw
constituency was in 2012-13. [154150]
Mr Gauke: I would refer the hon. Member to the
answer I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central
(Dan Jarvis) on 22 April 2013, Official Report, column
678W.
HMRC periodically publishes its performance statistics
at:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/about/bus-plan-qds.htm
And now at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/business-planindicators
Nick de Bois: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what estimate HM Revenue and Customs
has made of the number of requests for access to
communications data it would make under the
Communications Data Bill if that bill received Royal
Assent; and if he will make a statement. [154266]
Mr Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
does not hold the information requested. If the
Communications Data Bill were to receive Royal Assent
then HMRC would make full use of the powers in the
Act to support investigations into serious and organised
criminal attacks on the UK’s tax systems. Until such
time they cannot speculate on how many requests for
access to communications data would be necessary.
Nick de Bois: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer how many requests were made by HM
Revenue and Customs for access to communications
data in each of the last five years for which figures are
available. [154267]
Mr Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
acquires Communications Data to support investigations
into a broad range of financial frauds perpetrated by
serious, organised criminal groups, including the smuggling
and diversion of excise goods, indirect tax fraud (including
multi trader intra-community VAT fraud), money
laundering and the illegal import and export of strategic
goods.
The Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications
Data Codes of Practice (section 71 of the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000) require the Department—as
a relevant public authority—to keep a record of the
following items for inspection by the Interception of
Communications Commissioner’s Office (paragraph 6.5):
number of applications submitted to a designated person for a
decision to obtain communications data which were rejected after
due consideration;
number of notices requiring disclosure of communications
data within the meaning of each subsection of section 21 (4) of
the Act or any combinations of data;
number of authorisations for conduct to acquire communications
data within the meaning of each subsection of section 21 (4) of
the Act or any combinations of data;
number of times an urgent notice is given orally, or an urgent
authorisation granted orally, requiring disclosure of communications
data within the meaning of each subsection of section 21 (4) of
the Act or any combination of data.
Since 2008 HMRC has requested the following items
of Communications Data under the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000:
2008
(a) 1,328 (section 21 (4)(a)—traffic data)
(b) 1,167 (section 21(4)(b)—service use data)
(c) 8,506 (section 21 (4)(b)—service use data)
2009
(a) 1,778 (section 21 (4)(a)—traffic data)
(b) 669 (section 21(4)(b)—service use data)
(c) 8,722 (section 21(4)(c)—subscriber data)
2010
(a) 1,789 (section 21(4)(a)—traffic data)
(b) 376 (section 21 (4)(b)—service use data)
(c) 9,471 (section 21 (4)(c)—subscriber data)

277W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
278W
2011
(a) 2,784 (section 21(4)(a)—traffic data)
(b) 92 (section 21(4)(b)—service use data)
(c) 11,952 (section 21(4)(c)—subscriber data)
2012
(a) 3,013 (section 21(4)(a)—traffic data)
(b) 89 (section 21(4)(b)—service use data)
(c) 11,812 (section 21 (4)(c)—subscriber data)
2013 (to 10 May 2013)
(a) 1,345 (section 21 (4)(a)—traffic data)
(b) 12 (section 21 (4)(b)—service use data)
(c) 5,577 (section 21 (4)(c)—subscriber data)
The figures up to 2009 also include Communications
Data requests relating to drugs operations which HMRC
undertook on behalf of the UKBA.
Nick de Bois: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what the cost was to the public purse of all
requests for access to communications data made by
HM Revenue and Customs in each of the last five years
for which figures are available. [154268]
Mr Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs only holds the
information requested for the last three financial years.
The approximate cost of obtaining communications
data in those years was:
2010-11 360,000
2011-12 290,000
2012-13 260,000
Tax Havens: British Virgin Islands
Jim Sheridan: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what assessment he has made of the
findings of the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists on money held in the British
Virgin Islands. [154759]
Mr Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is
working with the United States and Australian tax
administrations (the IRS and ATO) to analyse data
which reveals extensive use of complex offshore structures
to conceal assets by wealthy individuals and companies.
The data also exposes information that may be shared
with other tax administrations as part of the global
fight against tax evasion.
Early results show the use of companies and trusts in
a number of territories around the world including
Singapore, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands,
and the Cook Islands.
HMRC has not seen the data reportedly held by the
ICIJ, but believes that information is broadly similar to
the data it holds.
Tonnage Tax
John McDonnell: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what the total value of concessions given by
HM Revenue and Customs to shipping companies in
respect of the tonnage tax scheme was in 2012-13.
[154407]
£
Sajid Javid: HMRC have granted no concessions to
shipping companies in respect of the tonnage tax scheme
in 2012-13.
Statistics are published by HMRC on .the estimated
reduction in tax liabilities accrued by the UK Shipping
Industry through the tonnage tax regime for 2011 -12
and 2012-13. These are available at the following link:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/expenditures/table1-5.pdf
As complete tax returns data for 2012-13 are not yet
available, the estimate is based on projecting forward
data from tax returns for 2010.
John McDonnell: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer how many vessels qualified for the tonnage
tax scheme in 2012-13; and how many have qualified to
date for the scheme in 2013-14. [154408]
Sajid Javid: The information requested is not available,
as the tax returns data for the years requested are not
yet complete.
Tourism: Government Assistance
Stephen Mosley: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what fiscal steps he is taking to support (a)
the tourism sector and (b) zoos and aquariums.
[154069]
Mr Gauke: Tourism is one of Britain’s most important
industries and the Government is committed to fostering
the conditions for growth and promoting Britain as a
top tourism destination.
Alongside the private sector, the Government funds
campaigns by VisitEngland and VisitBritain to promote
the UK as an international and domestic tourism
destination. Over 4 years VisitBritain’s international
campaign, including GREAT, will be investing £137 million
in inbound tourism to the UK. This is expected to
deliver an additional 4.7 million extra visitors to Britain,
£2.3 billion more spending in our economy and over
60,000 new job opportunities between 2011 and 2015.
Over the same period, promotion of domestic tourism
by VisitEngland and the devolved nation’s tourist boards
is expected to generate £500 million in extra spend and
12,500 new job opportunities
The Government has introduced a number of tax
changes to support businesses of all types. Most recently,
the Government announced in the Budget that it will
reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 20% and give
businesses an entitlement to a £2,000 per year employment
allowance towards their employer National Insurance
Contribution bill, from April 2014, to reduce the cost of
hiring staff. These measures will support all businesses
including those in tourism and operators of zoos and
aquariums.
Welfare Tax Credits
Mr Bain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
pursuant to the answer of 24 April 2013, Official
Report, column 1015W, on income tax, what
assessment he has made of the number of households
containing children and with two adults each earning
above the threshold for income tax who (a) will be in
receipt of tax credits and (b) will not be in receipt of
tax credits in (i) this and (ii) the next financial year.
[154108]

279W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
280W
Mr Gauke: The following table gives the number of
households with children and two adults, where both
adults earn above the personal allowance, which are
and are not in receipt of working or child tax credits, in
2013-14 and 2014-15.
2013 2014
In receipt of tax credits 202,000 177,000
Not in receipt of tax credits 2,175,000 2,147,000
Total 2,377,000 2,324,000
Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000; totals may
not sum due to rounding.
Mr Bain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
how many households containing a child and one adult
earning (a) more and (b) less than the threshold for
income tax in (i) the UK, (ii) each nation and each
region of the UK and (iii) each parliamentary
constituency in the UK will receive tax credits in each
of the next four financial years. [154174]
Mr Gauke: The following table gives the number of
UK households with children and a single adult and are
in receipt of working or child tax credits, and their
position in relation to the personal allowance, in 2013-14
and 2014-15. Regional breakdowns cannot be provided
due to small sample sizes.
Earning below the
personal allowance
(including nonworking
adults)
2013-14 (Personal
allowance = £9,440)
2014-15 (Personal
allowance = £10,000)
845,000 854,000
Earning above the
398,000 381,000
personal allowance
All 1,243,000 1,236,000
Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000, totals may
not sum due to rounding. HM Treasury’s modelling
assumes full take of the benefits to which an individual
is entitled; therefore, all households with children with
incomes below the personal allowance are entitled to
child tax credits.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Bangladesh
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development for what reason her
Department committed additional resources to the
CHARS Livelihood programme in Bangladesh prior to
completion and publication of the evaluation of that
project. [153974]
Justine Greening: The decision to fund Phase 2 of the
CHARS Livelihoods Programme (CLP2) was taken by
Ministers in December 2009 under the previous
Government.
Biofuels
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development (1) what discussions she
has had with the Secretary of State for Energy and
Climate Change on the effect of biofuels on hunger
ahead of the meeting of the EU Energy Council on 6
June 2013; [155302]
(2) whether the G8-linked event on Hunger and
Nutrition on 8 June 2013 will address the issue of
biofuels as a cause of hunger; [155303]
(3) what discussions she has had with her
counterparts in (a) DECC, (b) DfT, (c) BIS and (d)
DEFRA about the proposed amendment to the EU
Renewable Energy Directive to limit the amount of
food-based biofuels to five per cent of the total.
[155304]
Justine Greening: We believe that food production
must remain the primary goal of agriculture and production
of biomass for bioenergy must not undermine food
security in developing countries.
The Nutrition for Growth Event on 8 June will have
ambitious targeted outcomes on nutrition.
The Department for International Development has
regular discussions with other Whitehall Departments
in relation to the proposed amendment to the EU RED
to limit the amount of food based biofuels to 5% of the
total.
Consultants
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development whether her Department’s
contracts for the provision of aid programmes by
private contractors include provisions relating to the
awarding of bonuses by those contractors to individual
consultants. [154946]
Justine Greening: DFID does not include provisions
relating to the awarding of bonuses in its contracts.
Developing Countries: Nutrition
Sir Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State
for International Development how much of her
Department’s funding was committed to nutritionspecific
programmes in 2012. [154257]
Mr Duncan: Under the coalition Government, UK
annual expenditure on nutrition has almost doubled
from £19.3 million in 2009-10 to £37.5 million in 2011-12.
This does not capture the significant UK expenditure
on nutrition-sensitive programmes, humanitarian response
programmes, or nutrition research. Nutrition sensitive
programmes are programmes across a range of sectors
for example, social protection, agriculture or health
which are also designed to have a nutritional impact.
Developing Countries: Water
Mr Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development what programmes her
Department supports to assist poorer countries in
North Africa and the Gulf in water management.
[154949]
Mr Duncan: DFID supports water management
programmes in two countries of the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) region, Jordan and Yemen. In
Jordan, we are supporting a project that will help to
provide reliable access to quality water for both individuals
and businesses through the G8 Deauville MENA Transition
Fund.

281W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
282W
In Yemen, DFID supports an International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) project that helps
smallholders adapt to the effects of climate change,
including planning for watershed management, flashflooding
and water use. DFID is also a major contributor
to the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience, which
works on conservation of surface and ground water in
Yemen among other countries.
East Kilbride
Margaret Curran: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development how many staff are located
at her Department’s headquarters in East Kilbride.
[155678]
Mr Duncan: There are 561 staff located at DFID
headquarters at East Kilbride as at 30 April 2013.
International Assistance
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development if the UK will press for the
disaggregation of data by a range of factors to feature
prominently in the framework that will replace the
Millennium Development Goals. [154789]
Justine Greening: The Government has been clear it
wants to see a ‘data revolution’ for the next development
framework. The UK will continue to press for sufficient
data disaggregation in the new goal framework.
Latin America
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development what assessment she has
made of disparities in maternal mortality rates between
indigenous women and national populations in Latin
America. [155024]
Mr Duncan: DFID has made no specific assessment
of disparities in maternal mortality rates between indigenous
women and national populations in Latin America.
Nepal
Dr Wollaston: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development what funding (a) has been
and (b) will be given to the government of Nepal to
address widespread gender-based violence in that
country, including to assist in implementing the
government of Nepal’s National Action Plan for the
Implementation of United Nations Security Council
Resolutions 1325 and 1820. [155139]
Mr Duncan: The UK is providing extensive support
to the Government of Nepal to address gender-based
violence, including:
Technical expertise (with a value of £254,000) to the Office of
the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers to develop a special
Unit and a National Plan of Action to address gender-based
violence.
A three year Women’s Paralegal Committee Programme (with
a value of £6.5 million), delivered by UNICEF in coordination
with Government, to help prevent violence against women and
girls.
Funding (with a total value of £6 million—£840,000 attributed
to the UK), through the joint Government of Nepal and donor-funded
Nepal Peace Trust Fund (NPTF), to support the implementation
of UNSCR 1325 and 1820. This will help women and girls
affected by the conflict to rebuild their livelihoods and to seek
justice for conflict and violence-related abuses.
Over £500,000 has also been provided to civil society
organisations for awareness-raising and prevention of
violence against women and girls.
All of our programmes in Nepal undergo a gender
assessment during their design stage to ensure that
women and girls are involved in decision-making processes
and can access programme benefits. We are currently
designing a new security and justice programme (value
yet to be determined) which will build on existing
support and help strengthen the justice system in Nepal
to deliver a reduction in violence against women.
Overseas Aid
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development (1) how many middle
income countries receive overseas development
assistance through (a) bilateral programmes and (b)
multilateral organisations; [154872]
(2) which middle income countries receive official
development assistance from the Government; what
proportion of this assistance is in the form of (a)
bilateral programmes and (b) support via multilateral
organisations; how much each such country receives;
how many such countries have received increased
allocations since May 2010; and how much increase
any such country has received. [154871]
Justine Greening: Annex 1 of the ‘Statistics on
International Development’ (SID) publication - available
online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statistics-oninternational-development
lists all recipient countries, alongside details of country
income classifications and eligibility for Official
Development Assistance.
Tables 16.2-16.6 of the SID publication list UK net
bilateral ODA figures by recipient countries.
Table B.4 of Annex B within DFID’s Annual Report
2012 - available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-
for-international-development/series/dfid-annual-report-2011-
2012
lists imputed UK multilateral ODA shares by recipient
countries.
Training
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development how many officials in (a)
her Department and (b) the non-departmental public
body for which she is responsible enrolled in publiclyfunded
training courses in each of the last five years;
what the total cost has been of such courses; and what
the monetary value was of the 10 highest training
course fees in each such year. [155432]
Mr Duncan: DFID operates a decentralised Learning
and Development system and does not hold central
records of course attendance or small scale expenditure.
DFID publishes all expenditure over £500, which can
be found on our website:
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-us/How-we-measure-progress/
DFID-spend/
Producing any other type of report would incur
disproportionate costs.

283W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
284W
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Affordable Housing
Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government what
estimate his Department has made of the number of
affordable homes built in 2012. [154193]
Mr Prisk: The number of affordable homes built in
England in 2011-12, the most recent year for which data
is available, is published in the Department’s live table
1009, available at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/livetables-on-affordable-housing-supply
The figures show that the average number of new
affordable homes being delivered under this Government
are a third higher than under the last Administration.
Coastal Areas
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how much
funding has been allocated to each of the principal
seaside towns under the Working Neighbourhoods
Fund to date. [154593]
Brandon Lewis: A table showing Working
Neighbourhood Fund allocations for all local authorities
has been placed in the Library of the House.
The Fund was a time-limited, three year programme
that ended as originally scheduled in March 2011. More
information can be found in a deposited paper from
February 2011, available in the Library and online at:
http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2011-
0295/DEP2011-0295.tif
Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service
Toby Perkins: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government (1) how many
firefighters over the age of 50 are currently employed
within Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service; [154292]
(2) how many firefighters in Derbyshire Fire and
Rescue Service were redeployed to less physically
demanding positions in (a) 2012-13, (b) 2011-12, (c)
2010-11, (d) 2009-10 and (e) 2008-09. [154293]
Brandon Lewis: The information requested is not
held centrally.
EU Grants and Loans
Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government if he will list (a)
the total amount of European Regional Development
Fund funding by English region committed to projects
to date and (b) what percentage of the total allocation
this represents. [155185]
Brandon Lewis [holding answer 14 May 2013]: The
figures for contractually committed ERDF projects in
England as at the 31 March 2013 are as follows:
ERDF operational programme
Total operational
programme allocation (£
million)
Amount of ERDF
contractually
committed (£ million)
Proportion of ERDF
allocation contractually
committed
(Percentage)
Proportion of ERDF
allocation contractually
committed and awaiting
contracting
(Percentage)
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly (Convergence) 378.123 331.934 87.80 90.76
Regional competitiveness:
North East 315.900 246.763 78.13 106.54
Yorkshire and Humber 471.703 348.899 74.07 116.20
North West 633.617 462.774 73.05 106.43
West Midlands 327.940 255.211 77 82 102.27
East Midlands 221.409 146.625 66.23 109.42
East of England 91.013 88.307 97.09 110.96
South East 19.505 13.916 71.43 88.37
South West 102.290 79.100 77.34 83.19
London 153.494 134.613 87.72 97.46
Totals/Average proportion committed 2.715 billion 2.108 billion 77.64 104.33
The 2007-13 programme is on course and on track.
An average of over 100% of the programme has been
contractually committed or is awaiting contracting, with
matched funding in place. We are exactly where we
would expect to be at this point in the seven-year
programme.
Funds can be allocated until the end of 2013, and
funds should be spent by 2015.
Fire Services
Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government what steps he has
taken to ascertain the views of fire brigade staff about
his proposals to permit the spinning out of fire
brigades as public service mutuals. [154363]
Brandon Lewis: Any decision to set up a public service
mutual and to consult staff accordingly will be a matter
for the relevant fire and rescue authority.
I also refer the hon. Member to my answer of 13 May
2013, Official Report, column 54W.
Fire Services: Life Expectancy
Mr Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government what the average
life expectancy is of currently-retired firefighters.
[155054]
Brandon Lewis: The Government Actuary’s Department
produced a note in January 2010 on firefighter pensioner

285W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
286W
scheme longevity, which found that over the period
2003 to 2007 the anticipated longevity of firefighters in
retirement was as set out in the following table:
Age at retirement in 2007 Expected UK population longevity Expected firefighter pensioner longevity
50 (male) 34.7 36.3
55 (male) 29.9 31.6
60 (male) 25.1 27.0
50 (female) 37.9 38.0
55 (female) 32.8 33.3
60 (female) 27.9 28.6
The note by the Government Actuary’s Department
can be found at the following weblink:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/
http://communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/1436114
Fire Stations: West Midlands
Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how many fire
stations there were in (a) Birmingham and (b) the
West Midlands in each year since 2010. [154600]
Brandon Lewis: Numbers of fire stations for areas
within fire and rescue authorities are not held centrally.
The numbers of fire stations are therefore shown in the
table for each fire and rescue authority in the area
requested, with historic data for comparative purposes.
Number of fire stations by fire and rescue authority as at 31 March
West Midlands
Hereford and
Worcester Shropshire Staffordshire Warwickshire
2005 41 27 23 30 19
2006 41 27 23 30 19
2007 40 27 23 30 19
2008 40 27 23 30 19
2009 39 27 23 30 19
2010 39 27 26 30 19
2011 39 27 26 33 19
2012 39 27 23 33 17
Source:
Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy
Hotels: Heating
John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government what guidance
his Department has supplied to hotels and other
accommodation providers on fitting thermostatic
valves in guest rooms. [155311]
Mr Foster: The Department does not provide guidance
of this sort. However, changes to the Building Regulations
that came into force in April 2010 introduced a new
requirement for thermostatic mixing valves to be fitted
on baths in new dwellings. This was in response to
evidence which demonstrated that there were a significant
number of scalding accidents each year in the home,
particularly to young children and the old. We are not
aware of evidence that would justify extending this
requirement further, for example, to hotels.
Housing Improvement
Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government (1) with
reference to the letter sent to hon. Members of 19 April
2013, on making it easier for families to improve their
home, what plans he has to monitor the effects of the
new rules on extensions; [154187]
(2) what assessment he has made of the potential
cost to local authorities of providing planning services
to homeowners wishing to extend their property by up
to eight metres; [154188]
(3) with reference to the letter sent to hon. Members
of 19 April 2013, on making it easier for families to
improve their home, what guidance his Department
plans to publish to support the implementation of the
new rules on extensions; [154189]
(4) with reference to the letter sent to hon. Members
of 19 April 2013, on making it easier for families to
improve their home, what discussions he had with
external organisations about the new rules on
extensions prior to their introduction to the Growth
and Infrastructure Bill. [154190]
Nick Boles: We consulted on our proposals to extend
permitted development rights for homeowners and
businesses in November 2012. The Government’s response
to the consultation was published on 9 May, a copy of
which has been placed in the Library of the House.
Having carefully considered the consultation responses
and matters raised in the debates during the passage of
the Growth and Infrastructure Act, we have introduced
a new neighbours’ consultation scheme for larger
householder extensions. Information on the new limits
for householder extensions and the operation of the
neighbours’ consultation scheme is available on the
Planning Portal at:
www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/
extensions/

287W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
288W
The secondary legislation to amend the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development
Order) 1995 was laid on 9 May 2013, and the changes
will be monitored in due course with a view to determining
whether the three-year period they will be in place
should be extended further. The changes mean that
local authorities will benefit from a reduced number of
planning applications. The Department is currently engaging
in discussions with the Local Government Association
on its assessment of the overall impact on local authorities.
Currently no net additional costs are envisaged.
Local Government: Allowances and Pay
Mark Hendrick: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government (1) how much
was paid in (a) travel, (b) accommodation and (c)
other expenses to each local authority chief executive
in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12 and (iii) 2012-13; [154129]
(2) what (a) salary, (b) pension contribution and
(c) expenses were paid to each local authority chief
executive in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12 and (iii) 2012-13.
[154130]
Brandon Lewis: This information is not held centrally.
Local authorities are each independent employers and
Government do not formally collect detailed information
about the remuneration of senior local authority staff.
Local authorities are required to publish details of
the remuneration of their most senior employees in
their annual Statements of Accounts. This includes
information about salary, fees, allowances, expense
allowance, employer’s pension contribution and other
benefits. Statements of Accounts must be available for
public inspection including on an authority’s website.
The Government have taken steps to further increase
the transparency and accountability of local decisions
on pay and reward. Under the Transparency Code,
authorities are expected to make easily available details
of the remuneration of their most senior staff. In addition,
measures introduced in the Localism Act require authorities
to publish an annual statement explaining their policies
toward the pay and reward of their staff, particularly
senior staff.
Local Government: Procurement
Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how many
procurement contracts have been issued by local
authorities using clauses within the Public Services
(Social Value) Act 2012 to date; and what the estimated
total value of such contracts has been. [154117]
Brandon Lewis: We do not collect or hold this information
centrally.
The Act does not prescribe that considerations made
under it should be recorded and it is for local authorities
to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Act.
A Procurement Policy Note issued by the Cabinet
Office explaining the requirements placed upon
commissioners and procurement staff by the Act was
circulated by the Department for Communities and
Local Government to local authorities on 3 January
2013.
Non-domestic Rates: Chemists’ Shops
Diana Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government (1) what
assessment he has made of the potential benefits of
designating pharmacies as buildings for the provision
of healthcare for the purpose of determining business
rates; and if he will make a statement; [154676]
(2) if he will make it his policy to designate
community pharmacies as buildings for the provision
of healthcare for the purpose of determining business
rates. [154675]
Brandon Lewis: The assessment of rateable values for
non-domestic rates is a matter for the Valuation Office
Agency and it is not the role of Ministers to intervene in
those decisions. All rateable values are assessed to a
common basis using common rules and ratepayers who
disagree with their assessments may appeal to the Valuation
Tribunal.
Non-domestic Rates: Empty Property
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government if he will
introduce measures to require landlords receiving
empty property rate relief to make public details of
that relief and the properties affected. [154227]
Brandon Lewis: The Government has no current plans
to introduce measures to require landlords receiving
empty property rate relief to make public details of that
relief and the properties affected.
Business rates in Wales are a devolved matter.
Parking
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government what
representations he has received from (a) trade
organisations and (b) individuals on local authority
car parking strategies. [154226]
Brandon Lewis: The Department regularly receives
correspondence from organisations and individuals which
relate to the topics of car parking cost, availability,
spatial planning and enforcement, but we do not keep
specific records on each issue raised by a correspondent.
Departmental consultations (such as on the revised
Transparency Code) may also have included representations
on parking.
More broadly, I also refer the hon. Member to the
answer of 1 November 2012, Official Report, column
346W, which outlines the actions that my Department is
taking on parking, including those in response to the
Mary Portas review.
We will be taking further steps to ensure that parking
policies and practices support local high streets.
Planning
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government with reference to
the National Planning Policy Framework, what
definition his Department uses for (a) deliverability
and (b) viability. [155018]

289W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
290W
Nick Boles: The National Planning Policy Framework
at footnote 11 explains that to be considered deliverable
“sites should be available now, offer a suitable location
for development now, and be achievable with a realistic
prospect that housing will be delivered on the site
within five years and in particular that development of
the site is viable.”
Furthermore, planning policy on viability is set out at
paragraph 173. This states that, to ensure viability, “the
costs of any requirements likely to be applied to
development, such as requirements for affordable housing,
standards, infrastructure contributions or other
requirements should, when taking account of the normal
cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive
returns to a willing land owner, and willing developer to
enable the development to be deliverable.”
Further guidance is contained within the Strategic
Housing Land Availability Assessment guidance (August
2007) on assessing deliverability, which includes assessing
viability. This guidance remains in place pending the
outcome of the review of planning practice guidance,
and can still be used where relevant to the National
Planning Policy Framework.
Publications
Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how much his
Department spent on subscriptions to academic
journals published by (a) Reed-Elsevier, (b) Wiley-
Blackwell, (c) Springer and (d) any other academic
publisher in each of the last five years. [154489]
Brandon Lewis: Our procurement files show that there
was no spend on subscriptions with the publishers
mentioned. A full investigation involving searching through
our financial ledger would incur disproportionate costs
as we do not categorise expenditure by academic publishers.
Scotland
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government (1) which
external (a) organisations and (b) individuals his
Department has engaged as part of the Scotland
Analysis Programme; and what was discussed at such
consultations; [154729]
(2) how many officials in his Department have been
allocated to work on the Scotland Analysis
Programme; and at what cost to the public purse;
[154730]
(3) what meetings he and officials in his Department
have had with the right hon. Member for Edinburgh
South West as part of the Scotland Analysis
Programme; and what was discussed at those meetings;
[154731]
(4) what work his Department has commissioned
from external consultants in relation to work on the
Scotland Analysis Programme; which consultants were
used; and at what cost to the public purse. [154732]
Brandon Lewis: Work on the Scotland analysis
programme is being carried out across Government by
policy experts in relevant areas. There is a small team in
Her Majesty’s Treasury coordinating the programme.
As the programme largely relates to reserved areas of
policy, DCLG is not actively involved in the analysis.
Shops: Empty Property
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how many shops
received empty property rate relief in each (a) local
authority area and (b) parliamentary constituency in
each year for which figures are available. [154224]
Brandon Lewis: The information requested is not
held centrally.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government if he will give
consideration to reforming the system of compulsory
purchase orders to allow local authorities and business
improvement districts to buy a medium-term lease on
empty shops. [154225]
Nick Boles: Local authorities have a power under
section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1976 to acquire new rights over land
which do not exist at the time the compulsory purchase
order is made. This would include a lease. As with all
compulsory purchase orders, the acquiring authority
would have to demonstrate that there were no impediments
to their scheme going ahead and that it had a compelling
case in the public interest to deprive the owner of the
land of his property rights.
Temporary Employment
Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government whether all
agency staff employed by his Department are paid at
or above the relevant level of the living wage. [154724]
Brandon Lewis: The Government supports the living
wage and encourages business to take it up where
possible and affordable. However, the decision on what
wages to set is for individual employers and workers,
and these include agency staff working in the Department.
More broadly, from April 2013, the Government has
raised the personal income allowance to £9,440—an
income tax cut for 24 million tax payers—which will
particularly help those on local incomes. The recent
Budget announced the personal allowance will rise again
to £10,000 from April 2014.
Urban Areas
Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government (1) what estimate
he has made of the financial benefit to the Portas Pilot
Round 1 and 2 winners as a result of local economic
growth following their participation in the Portas Pilot
scheme; [154722]
(2) what proportion of the money allocated to high
street partnerships under the Portas Pilots scheme has
been spent to date in respect of each of the schemes
funded. [154723]
Mr Prisk: The Government has given the Portas
Pilots a share of £2.4million to spend as and when they
see fit to best improve their high streets and encourage
residents to shop locally. The main aim of this scheme
has been to harness the energy and enthusiasm of local
people to breathe new life into the town centres and
make them the hearts of their communities once again.
It is only when local authorities, businesses and communities
work together to use the support and funding available
that things will happen on the ground.

291W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
292W
These are long-term projects, and teams are taking a
strategic approach that is consciously trying not to
splurge all the funding awarded at once. Each plan to
rejuvenate a high street will be different. Therefore the
way, speed and manner that local teams spend money
will be different. Moreover, town teams have leveraged
additional funding from other sources including the
local authority, in-kind support (such as premises) and
free publicity. The Portas Pilots’ local authorities are
the accountable body responsible for spending, and we
have not imposed performance management frameworks
to monitor their spend patterns nor are we requiring
them to provide assessments of the impact on local
economic growth from this specific initiative, reflecting
the fact that this Government is committed to reducing
top-down reporting burdens on local government.
Pilots up and down the country are already working
together successfully and achieving results, from Rotherham
helping local businesses expand and develop, to
Loughborough bringing students and local residents on
board with a loyalty scheme. But this is just the start,
which is why I established the Future High Streets
Forum, made up of leading figures from retail, property,
business, academics, third sector, civil society and
government, to drive forward ideas and policies to help
high streets adapt and compete.
Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how many of the
Portas Pilot (a) Round 1 and (b) Round 2 winners
have been visited by (i) Government Ministers and (ii)
Mary Portas as part of the Portas Pilot scheme
co-ordinated by his Department. [154725]
Mr Prisk: Government Ministers committed to visiting
the Round 2 Pilots, and to date Ministers have visited
four Round 1 and five Round 2 Pilots. Further ministerial
visits to Round 2 pilots are scheduled for the coming
months.
The Government has not co-ordinated visits by Mary
Portas; these have been arranged independently by Mary
Portas’ team. Her team advises us that of the first
12 Pilot towns chosen by the Government, all of them
have been contacted by the Portas Agency to arrange a
visit. To date Mary has visited eight Round 1 and one
Round 2 Pilots.
Urban Areas: Regeneration
Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government (1)
when he expects to publish the progress report on the
first round of Portas pilot projects; [154191]
(2) what recent assessment he has made of the
success of the first round of Portas pilots. [154195]
Mr Prisk: A progress report on high streets was
published in March 2013:
http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/168023/Future_of_High_Streets.pdf
and a full report will be published in the summer.
The Government have given the Round 1 Portas
pilots a share of £1.2 million to spend as they see fit to
improve their high streets and encourage residents to shop
locally. The main aim of this scheme has been to
harness the energy and enthusiasm of local people to
breathe new life into the town centres and make them
the hearts of their communities once again
A lot has been achieved by the Portas pilots already,
from Nelson bringing empty shops back into use, to
Market Rasen creating an award-winning local market,
and Bedminster successfully getting a Business Improvement
District approved. These are pilots—they will have successes
and failures that we will all learn from. The Pilots were
just the start, which is why I have also announced a
Future High Streets Forurn,made up of leading figures
from retail, property, business, academics, third sector,
civil society and government, to drive forward ideas and
policies to help high streets thrive and prosper.
HEALTH
Accident and Emergency Departments: East Midlands
Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what the average waiting times are at each
individual accident and emergency unit in the East
Midlands. [154177]
Anna Soubry: The information requested is not available
in the format requested. However, the following table
shows the average waiting times in accident and emergency
(A&E) for national health services trusts in the East
Midlands.
Mean and median duration to departure (in minutes) 1 for all A&E attendances 2 by hospital provider 3 in East Midlands Strategic Health Authority of Treatment, for
2011-12
Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector
Provider Code Provider Description Mean Median
2011-12
RFS Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 139 132
RTG Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 147 146
RY8 Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Trust 67 53
RNQ Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 129 111
RY5 Lincolnshire Community Health Services NHS Trust 59 47
RNS Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust 148 137
RX1 Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust 145 137
RK5 Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 137 130
RWD United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust 141 125

293W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
294W
Mean and median duration to departure (in minutes) 1 for all A&E attendances 2 by hospital provider 3 in East Midlands Strategic Health Authority of Treatment, for
2011-12
Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector
2011-12
Provider Code Provider Description Mean Median
RWE University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust 142 130
1
Duration to Departure (in minutes):
The time (expressed as a whole number of minutes) between the patients arrival and the time the A&E attendance has concluded and the department is no longer
responsible for the care of the patient.
2
A&E Attendances:
A&E Attendances in HES, relates to the number of recorded attendances. A&E attendances do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than
one admission within the year. HES A&E figures exclude planned follow up attendances.
3
Hospital Provider:
A provider code is a unique code that identifies an organisation acting as a health care provider (e.g. NHS Trust or PCT).
Data quality:
A&E Hospital Episode Statistics are compiled from data submitted by more than 160 NHS trusts and primary care trusts in England. The NHS Information Centre
for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies. While this
brings about improvement over time, some shortcomings remain.
Note:
Provisional 2012-13 A&E data will be published in July 2013 and final data published October 2013.
Source:
Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and Social Care Information Centre
Accident and Emergency Departments: East of England
Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what the average waiting times are at each
individual accident and emergency unit in East Anglia.
[154178]
Anna Soubry: The information requested is not available
in the format requested. However, the following table
shows the average waiting times in accident and emergency
(A&E) for national health services trusts in the former
East of England strategic health authority area.
Mean and median duration to departure (in minutes) 1 for all A&E attendances 2 by hospital provider 3 in East of England Strategic Health Authority of Treatment, for
2011-12
Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector
2011-12
Provider Code Provider Description Mean Median
RDD Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 193 187
RC1 Bedford Hospital NHS Trust 143 136
RGT Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 163 166
RYV Cambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust 43 36
NQ108 Clacton Hospital 45 37
RDE Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust 141 132
RWH East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust 147 137
NQ106 Fryatt Hospital 39 31
RQQ-X Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust 136 127
RGQ Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust 147 142
RGP James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 140 124
RC9 Luton And Dunstable Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 162 162
RQ8 Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust 157 151
RM1 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 143 136
RGN Peterborough And Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 157 158
RAJ Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 141 137
5PT Suffolk PCT 30 25
RQW The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust 166 161
RCX The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust 147 140
RWG West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust 130 119
RGR West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust 125 115
1
Duration to Departure (in minutes):
The time (expressed as a whole number of minutes) between the patients arrival and the time the A&E attendance has concluded and the department is no longer
responsible for the care of the patient.
2
A&E Attendances:
A&E Attendances in HES, relates to the number of recorded attendances. A&E attendances do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than
one admission within the year. HES A&E figures exclude planned follow up attendances.
3
Hospital Provider:
A provider code is a unique code that identifies an organisation acting as a health care provider (e.g. NHS Trust or PCT).
Data quality:
A&E Hospital Episode Statistics are compiled from data submitted by more than 160 NHS trusts and primary care trusts in England. The NHS Information Centre
for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies. While this
brings about improvement over time, some shortcomings remain.
Note:
Provisional 2012-13 A&E data will be published in July 2013 and final data published October 2013.
Source:
Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and Social Care Information Centre

295W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
296W
Accident and Emergency Departments: Kettering
Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health how many patients have waited more than four
hours in accident and emergency at Kettering General
Hospital in each month since May 2010. [154176]
Anna Soubry: The information requested is provided
in the following table.
Accident and emergency attendances with total time over four hours at Kettering
General Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust by month, May 2010 to present
Number of over
four hour waits
Number of
weeks in month
2010-11 May 2010 367 4
June 2010 31 4
July 2010 618 5
August 2010 316 1
—
September 2010 124 1
—
October 2010 152 1
—
November 2010 289 4
December 2010 615 5
January 2011 665 4
February 2011 531 4
March 2011 355 5
2011-12 April 2011 310 4
May 2011 452 4
June 2011 539 5
July 2011 548 4
August 2011 651 4
September 2011 640 5
October 2011 366 4
November 2011 650 4
December 2011 737 5
January 2012 450 4
February 2012 335 4
March 2012 363 5
2012-13 April 2012 262 4
May 2012 613 5
June 2012 386 4
July 2012 193 4
August 2012 458 5
September 2012 292 4
October 2012 340 4
November 2012 926 5
December 2012 873 4
January 2013 1,316 5
February 2013 630 4
March 2013 1,151 4
2013-14 April 2013 1,530 4
1
Calendar month.
Note:
Figures from weekly returns assigned months and hence do not represent a
calendar month apart from August to October 2010.
Source:
Weekly situation reports, monthly situation reports (August to October 2010
only).
Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health how many patients have used accident and
emergency at Kettering General Hospital in each of the
last five years; and what estimate he has made of
demand for the service in each of the next five years.
[154179]
Anna Soubry: The information requested is provided
in the following table. Local national health service
commissioners and providers are responsible for service
planning to ensure that the local NHS continues to
meet the needs of local communities.
Accident and emergency (A&E) attendances at Kettering General Hospitals
NHS Trust
Number of attendances
Type 1 (major) A&E
All types
2008-09 63,925 18,430
2009-10 66,784 19,187
2010-11 67,557 14,651
2011-12 69,679 15,381
2012-13 73,799 12,293
Source:
QMAE quarterly return, weekly situation reports (11-12 onwards)
Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health how many times Kettering General Hospital
has issued public statements in which it urged people
not to come to accident and emergency in each of the
last five years. [154624]
Anna Soubry: The information requested is not held
centrally.
Accident and Emergency Departments: North West
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
on how many occasions the accident and emergency
waiting time target has been breached in each hospital
in the North West in the last 26 weeks for which
information is available. [155221]
Anna Soubry: The information is not held in the
format requested. The number of times the accident
and emergency (A&E) waiting time standard (95% within
four hours) has been missed in the last 26 weeks (11
November 2012 to 5 May 2013) for each NHS trust in
the north-west is shown in the following table:
NHS trust
Number of times the A&E standard
was missed in the last 26 weeks
5 Boroughs Partnership NHS
0
Foundation Trust
Aintree University Hospital NHS
16
Foundation Trust
Alder Hey Children’s NHS
7
Foundation Trust
Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS
11
Foundation Trust
Bolton NHS Foundation Trust 11
Bridgewater Community Healthcare
0
NHS Trust
Central Manchester University
14
Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Countess of Chester Hospital NHS
10
Foundation Trust
Cumbria Partnership NHS
1
Foundation Trust
East Cheshire NHS Trust 16

297W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
298W
NHS trust
Number of times the A&E standard
was missed in the last 26 weeks
NHS trust
Number of times the A&E standard
was missed in the last 26 weeks
East Lancashire Hospitals NHS
17
Trust
Lancashire Teaching Hospitals
16
NHS Foundation Trust
Liverpool Community Health NHS
0
Trust
Liverpool Women’s NHS
0
Foundation Trust
Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS
9
Foundation Trust
North Cumbria University
21
Hospitals NHS Trust
Oldham PCT Walk-in Centre 0
Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 11
Pennine Care NHS Foundation
0
Trust
Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen
13
Hospitals NHS Trust
Salford Royal NHS Foundation
14
Trust
Southport and Ormskirk Hospital
16
NHS Trust
St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals
12
NHS Trust
Stockport NHS Foundation Trust 23
Tameside Hospital NHS
19
Foundation Trust
University Hospital of South
25
Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
University Hospitals of Morecambe
18
Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Warrington and Halton Hospitals
10
NHS Foundation Trust
West Lancashire Healthcare
0
Partnership Community CIC
Wirral Community NHS Trust 0
Wirral University Teaching
21
Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh
NHS Foundation Trust
Note:
A&E data are not held at hospital site level so data for the relevant hospital
trust have been provided.
Source:
NHS England Unify2 Data Collection Weekly SiteRep
Anaemia
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what recent discussions he has had with the
Cabinet Secretary for Health in Scotland regarding the
incidence of aplastic anaemia with idiopathic causes.
[154424]
Anna Soubry: The Secretary of State for Health, my
right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey
(Mr Hunt), and departmental officials have had no
such discussions.
Buildings
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what the total running costs were for each building
used, owned or rented in central London by his
Department, its agencies and non-departmental public
bodies, other than for buildings primarily used for the
provision of medical services, in each of the last three
financial years. [154242]
Anna Soubry: The total running costs for each building
used, owned or rented in central London by the
Department, its agencies and non-departmental public
bodies, are identified in the following table.
8
£
Building Occupancy 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Wellington House
Total Running Costs (broken down
2,055,364 2,686,616 2,441,854
as follows)
Department of Health 1 2,033,785 2,588,073 1,689,032
Monitor Not occupied Not occupied 395,432
Cost of occupancy of other
organisations 2 21,579 98,543 357,390
Skipton House
Total Running Costs (broken down
7,948,905 9,445,067 9695,207
as follows)
Department of Health 1 7;468,609 8,595,955 7,439,014
Health Research Authority Not occupied 54,733 368,871
NHS Connecting for Health Not occupied 248,252 568,230
National Treatment Agency 480,296 546,127 538,974
Cost of occupancy of other
organisations 2 Not occupied Not occupied 780,118
Richmond House
Total Running Costs (broken down
3,134,108 3,710,542 3,987,125
as follows)
Department of Health 1 3,134,108 3,692,933 3,956,592
Cost of occupancy of other
organisations 2 Not occupied 17,609 30,533
New Kings Beam House Department of Health 3,063,697 3,616,788 Building vacated
Health and Social Care Information
85,668 43,817 Building vacated
Centre
NHS Connecting for Health 284,437 142,218 Building vacated

299W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
300W
£
Building Occupancy 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
22 Bloomsbury Street Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Authority
716,918 239,000 Building vacated
151 Buckingham Palace Road Human Tissue Authority 199,030 483,355 516,356
Medicines and Healthcare Products
5,494,671 4,115,111 5,225,257
Regulatory Agency
NHS Litigation Authority 1,518,000 1,032,854 1,098,717
Health Protection Agency 1,400,868 2,146,435 2,250,000
Health and Social Care Information
Centre
Not occupied 26,000 34,000
Mid City Place
National Institute for Clinical
Excellence (NICE)
2,358,000 2,315,000 3
2,934,000
Tavistock House NHS Connecting for Health 176,452 178,114 180,990
Maple Street National Patient Safety Agency 1,239,396 Not occupied Not occupied
Department of Health Not occupied 951,929 Not occupied
NHS Commissioning Board Not occupied Not occupied 1,625,122
Matthew Parker Street Monitor 1,187,451 1,225,424 1,372,829
Holborn Gate Health Protection Agency 1,366,700 Building vacated —
Lower Marsh Health Protection Agency 78,660 114,462 114,462
Portland House Health Education England Not occupied Not occupied 193,804
Belgrave Road
Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulatory Agency
79,108 79,294 53,308
1
Costs exclude the charges made by the Department for collocation and other organisations occupancy in departmental buildings.
2
The charge by the Department for occupancy in departmental buildings based on a percentage of departmental running costs. These are NHS organisations and not
departmental agencies or non-departmental public bodies
3
NICE moved from Mid-City Place in December 2012 to Spring Gardens and the costs for 2012-13 include the costs for Spring Gardens.
Notes:
1. Central London has been defined as the following postcode areas, SW1, W1, WC1, WC2 and SE1.
2. The Department and its arm’s length bodies aim to maximise the occupancy, of its estate in line with the national Property Controls. Wherever possible we
encourage collocation and sharing of buildings.
3. The Department and its arm’s length bodies aim to maximise the occupancy of its estate with in line with the national Property Controls. Wherever possible we
encourage collocation and sharing of buildings.
Cancer
Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
which NHS bodies are responsible for ensuring that the
guidance on the management of low-risk basal cell
carcinomas in the community published by NICE in
2011 is safely implemented. [154677]
Anna Soubry: The National Institute of Health and
Care Excellence’s cancer service guidance is not mandatory.
It represents evidence-based best practice and we would
expect national health service organisations to take it
fully into account as they design services to meet the
needs of patients. It is for NHS organisations to consider
how best to implement the guidance safety.
Pauline Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health whether his Department has allocated funding
to treat newly-diagnosed NHS cancer patients who
cannot access previously reimbursed cancer treatments
following the transition of the Cancer Drugs Fund on
1 April 2013. [154912]
Norman Lamb: £200 million has been made available
to the national health service in 2013-14 for the Cancer
Drugs Fund.
Cancer: Clinical Commissioning Groups
Mr Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health (1) what steps he plans to take to support
clinical commissioning groups to improve the
experience of cancer patients in their area; [154628]
(2) what steps he is taking to address variations of
care reported in the National Cancer Patient
Experience survey. [154629]
Anna Soubry: The Mandate to NHS England requires
it to deliver continued improvements in relation to
patients’ experience of care, including cancer care.
The national report and 160 bespoke trust level reports
from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey
2011-12, published in August 2012, continue to support
both clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and providers
to drive and inform local service improvement. The
trust level reports provide benchmarked data nationally
and between teams, allowing providers to identify priority
improvement areas and supporting CCGs to better
commission high quality cancer services for local
populations.

301W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
302W
Work on the National Cancer Patient Experience
Survey 2012-13 is currently under way. It is anticipated
that national and trust level reports will be published in
summer 2013.
More generally, NHS Improving Quality (NHS IQ),
the new NHS Improvement body, has made “ensuring
that experience of care is central to commissioning and
care delivery” one of its 10 key work programmes for
2013-14. NHS IQ will be working on the design and
testing of an improvement framework for engaging,
involving and improving experience of care; a capability
building programme for commissioners and providers;
and specific interventions to improve experience, such
as the friends and family test.
Coeliac Disease
Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what steps his Department is taking to improve the
diagnosis of coeliac disease. [154411]
Norman Lamb: Clinical commissioning groups, as
local commissioners have the primary responsibility for
determining what steps are needed to improve the diagnosis
of people with coeliac disease in their area.
To support local commissioners, the National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has published a
clinical guideline ‘Coeliac Disease: Recognition and
Assessment of Coeliac Disease’ to help improve the
recognition of coeliac disease and increase the number
of people diagnosed with the condition.
Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what steps his Department is taking to mark Coeliac
Awareness Week. [154412]
Norman Lamb: Clinical commissioning groups are
now responsible for commissioning services for people
with coeliac disease.
The Government recognises the importance of the
disease and will continue to work with NHS England to
drive improvements in the quality of services.
Defibrillators
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) what proportion of ambulance vehicles were
equipped with defibrillators in each of the last 30 years;
[154787]
(2) what assessment he has made of the availability
and accessibility of defibrillators on survival rates for
out-of-hospital cardiac arrests; [154806]
(3) what funding his Department has made available
for the (a) purchase of defibrillators and (b) training
of members of the public in their use. [154807]
Anna Soubry: Information on the proportion of
ambulances equipped with defibrillators is not collected
centrally.
The Department has made no assessment of the
availability and accessibility of defibrillators on survival
rates for out of hospital cardiac arrests.
The Department does not currently fund the purchase
of defibrillators or the training of members of the
public in the use of defibrillators. Ambulance trusts
have had responsibility for sustaining the legacy of the
National Defibrillator Programme since February 2007.
Drugs
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of
supply of (a) loperamade and (b) trazodone; and if he
will make a statement. [154207]
Norman Lamb: Departmental officials have been in
touch with a number of suppliers of loperamide capsules
who have indicated that they have good stocks available.
We are aware that there have been intermittent supply
problems with trazodone. However, we understand that
supplies have recently been released to the market with
more expected later this month.
Drugs: Health Education
John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health (1) what budget was available for public health
education on the effects of legal highs in the last
financial year; [155313]
(2) when he last reviewed the effectiveness of public
health education and publicity on the effects of legal
highs. [155314]
Anna Soubry: The FRANK drug information campaign
provides young people and their families with advice
and information about all drugs, including ‘legal highs’.
The campaign is managed jointly by the Department of
Health and the Home Office. We continually review the
FRANK service to ensure that it provides effective and
up to date information.
The Home Office funds advertising to raise awareness
of the FRANK service. The Department has funded
and managed the FRANK service which comprises the
helpline, email, SMS, live chat and website and on
1 April this responsibility passed to Public Health England.
In 2012-13 the Department spent £0.9 million on the
FRANK service. It is not possible to isolate the costs of
providing information about legal highs. However in
2012, the Department launched a targeted campaign
costing £21,000 to encourage parents to talk to their
children about legal highs.
Electronic Cigarettes
Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health if he will bring forward plans to restrict the
marketing, sales and promotion of electronic cigarettes
so that they (a) are only sold to adults at licensed
outlets, (b) are only targeted at smokers as a way of
reducing smoking or quitting and (c) do not appeal to
non-smokers, particularly children. [154217]
Norman Lamb: There are a number of products on
the market which claim to contain nicotine, such as
electronic cigarettes, which are widely and easily available
but are not licensed medicines. Currently, any nicotine
containing product (NCP) that claims or implies that it
can assist in giving up smoking is considered by the
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
(MHRA) to be a medicinal product. This approach has
allowed NCPs which do not make such claims to be
used and sold without the safeguards built into the
regulation of medicines.
The Government is concerned to ensure that an
effective, proportionate regulatory framework exists to
protect consumers from any electronic cigarette products

303W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
304W
that fail to meet acceptable standards for quality, safety
and efficacy. The MHRA co-ordinated a programme of
research to advise on:
an investigation of the levels of nicotine which have a significant
physiological effect through its pharmacological action;
the nature, quality and safety of unlicensed NCPs;
the actual use of unlicensed NCPs (excluding tobacco products)
in the marketplace;
the efficacy of unlicensed NCPs in smoking cessation; and
modelling of the potential impact of bringing these products
into medicines regulation on public health outcomes.
The MHRA is currently bringing to a conclusion this
period of scientific and market research with a view to a
final decision on the application of medicines regulation
soon.
Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health if he will bring forward proposals to extend
existing smoking legislation in the UK to include
vapour from electronic cigarettes. [154218]
Anna Soubry: While they contain nicotine, the majority
of electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco and so
legislation that deals with tobacco does not apply.
The Government have no plans to extend the current
smokefree legislation. Smokefree legislation regulates
being in possession of any lit substance in a form in
which it could be smoked, regardless of whether it
contains tobacco. Electronic cigarettes that are not lit
and operate by creating a vapour would not be covered
by the legislation. More research is needed to understand
whether there are any risks to health associated with
secondhand vapour from e-cigarettes.
To gain a better understanding and inform future
policy decisions on e-cigarettes, the Medicines and
Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is co-ordinating
a period of scientific and market research. The Department
will use the information to consider how public health
can be protected and promoted.
Meanwhile, we encourage smokers to use licensed
nicotine replacement therapy such as patches, gum,
inhalators, lozenges or mouth sprays, as the safest source
of nicotine, in place of smoking.
Enfield
Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
how much funding (a) his Department and (b) each of
the non-departmental public bodies for which he is
responsible has allocated to the London borough of
Enfield local authority in each of the last five years.
[154516]
Anna Soubry: The funding given to each council
under each yearly Local Government Finance Settlement
is available online at:
www.local.communities.gov.uk/
In addition, the Department of Health has provided
a number of grants and transfers to Enfield.
In 2009-10, the Department provided a number of
grants to Enfield for social care, totalling over £7.75 million.
In 2010-11, the amount awarded to Enfield rose to over
£8.4 million.
From 2011-12, the majority of these grants were
rolled into the Local Government Finance Settlement.
However, local authorities took on a number of new
responsibilities for social care, including for the
commissioning of services for people with learning
disabilities. Enfield also received a transfer from the
national health service for social care with a health
benefit, resulting in total funding of just over £9 million.
In 2012-13, these funding streams continued, and
Enfield again received over £9 million in departmental
funding.
For 2013-14, most of the former departmental grant
money is to be allocated through the Department for
Communities and Local Government’s Business Rates
Retention scheme. However, local authorities will take
on responsibility for public health commissioning and
the NHS will continue to transfer funding for social
care with a health benefit. In total, Enfield will receive
over £18.5 million from the Department in 2013-14.
Flour: Additives
Peter Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) what assessment he has made of the effects of the
mandatory fortification of bread and flour with key
nutrients on individuals’ health; [154457]
(2) what assessment he has made of the effects of the
fortification of bread and flour with key nutrients on
the health of low income groups. [154458]
Anna Soubry: Since 1 April 2013, Public Health England
became responsible for Nutrition Science including
functions relating to the Scientific Advisory Committee
on Nutrition (SACN).
During 2012, SACN conducted an assessment of the
effect of removing the nutrients (iron, calcium, thiamin
and niacin), which are currently added to bread and
flour under the Bread and Flour Regulations.
SACN concluded that without flour fortification the
proportion of the population with inadequate intakes
of these nutrients would increase, particularly so in
relation to calcium and iron intakes in children, older
girls and young adult population groups and that this
may impact on health. The impact in low income groups
is likely to be greater as these groups tend to have lower
intakes of these nutrients and consume more bread
than compared with the general population.
Prior to this in 2009, SACN had provided the
Department with updated advice on the issue of folic
acid, concluding that fortification of flour with folic
acid would reduce the risk of pregnancies affected by
neural tube defects.
Peter Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) what assessment he has made of the report of the
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition on the
potential nutritional effects of repealing the Bread and
Flour Regulations 1998; [154459]
(2) what assessment he has made of the potential
effects of repealing the Bread and Flour Regulations
1998 on the National Health Service. [154460]
Chris Williamson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what assessment he has made of the potential
effect on (a) public health and (b) the cost of health
services arising from revocation of the Bread and Flour
Regulations 1998. [154745]

305W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
306W
Anna Soubry: The Department of Health asked the
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) to
conduct an assessment of the effects on nutritional
status of removing the nutrients (iron, calcium, thiamin
and niacin), which are currently added to bread and
flour under the Bread and Flour Regulations.
SACN’s assessment established that without flour
fortification the proportion of the population with
inadequate intakes of these nutrients would increase,
particularly so in relation to calcium and iron intakes in
children, older girls and young adult population groups
and that this could impact on health. The impact in low
income groups is likely to be greater as these groups
tend to have lower intakes of these nutrients and consume
more bread than compared with the general population.
There is limited information about the effect of repeal
on the national health service. Any potential changes to
the current nutritional status of particularly vulnerable
groups of the population as a result of repeal would
require mitigation through ongoing advice on balanced
diets and consideration of targeted advice at a local
level.
The Department will be working with the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that
all relevant available evidence is considered as part of
deliberations on the recent public consultation on repeal
of the Bread and Flour Regulations.
Health Services
Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what estimate he has made of savings to his
Department’s budget in 2013-14 as a result of the
abolition of strategic health authorities and primary
care trusts. [154899]
Dr Poulter: The revised impact assessment for the
Health and Social Care Bill (now the Health and Social
Care Act 2012) published in September 2011, set out a
revised trajectory of how the Department planned to
implement the required one-third reduction in total
administration costs over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15.
The total administration budget set for 2013-14 is
£3,167 million, which is £386 million lower than the
estimate in the impact assessment. As savings are measured
at total administration cost level, it is not possible to
specifically attribute a figure to the abolition of strategic
health authorities and primary care trusts.
Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what estimate he has made of savings accrued
to his Department as a result of the reduction in size of
strategic health authorities and primary care trusts in
each year since 2010-11. [154900]
Dr Poulter: The revised impact assessment for the
Health and Social Care Bill (now the Health and Social
Care Act 2012), published in September 2011, set out a
revised trajectory of how the Department planned to
implement the required one-third reduction in total
administration costs over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15.
Out-turn for administration costs published in Notes
Six and Seven of the Department’s annual report and
accounts 2011-12 was £3,307 million, which is £662 million
lower than the estimate in the impact assessment. The
administration out-turn for 2012-13 will be published in
the 2012-13 annual report and accounts in July 2013.
Health Services: EU Nationals
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what estimate his Department has made of the
additional cost to the NHS as a result of use by
Romanian and Bulgarian nationals over the next three
years. [154413]
Anna Soubry: The Department has not made an
assessment of such additional costs to the national
health service.
The United Kingdom can claim back the cost of
treating European Economic Area (EEA) nationals visiting
or studying in the United Kingdom and for providing
healthcare to EEA pensioners who reside here, from
their home member state. However we will be consulting
in the summer on how the NHS can become more
effective at identifying those who are not entitled to free
healthcare and claiming money back from them.
EEA nationals working, and paying taxes here, are
entitled to free NHS hospital treatment.
Health Services: West Midlands
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health (1) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
congenital heart disease services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (i)
being treated by such services and (ii) expected to be
treated by such services in the financial year 2013-14 in
each such area; [154320]
(2) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
highly specialist respiratory services in (i) Shropshire
and Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (i)
being treated by such services and (ii) expected to be
treated by such services in the financial year 2013-14 in
each such area; [154321]
(3) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
highly specialist pain management services in (i)
Shropshire and Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire,
(iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stokeon-Trent
and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year
ending 31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients
(i) being created by such services and (ii) expected to be
treated by such services in the financial year 2013-14 in
each such area; [154322]
(4) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
highly specialist rheumatology services in (i)
Shropshire and Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire,
(iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stokeon-Trent
and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year
ending 31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients

307W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
308W
(i) being treated by such services and (ii) expected to be
treated by such services in the financial year 2013-14 in
each such area; [154323]
(5) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist vascular services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (i)
being treated by such services and (ii) expected to be
treated by such services in the financial year 2013-14 in
each such area; [154324]
(6) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
what budget he has for the commissioning of
specialised services in (i) Shropshire and Staffordshire
NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North
Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-Trent, and (vi) South
Staffordshire in the year ending 31 March 2014, (b)
what the budget was in each such area for the year
ending 31 March 2013 and (c) what the budget was per
head of population in each such area in each financial
year; [154328]
(7) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget he plans to set for the
commissioning of adult ataxia telangiectasia services in
(i) Shropshire and Staffordshire NHS area, (ii)
Shropshire, (iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire,
(v) Stoke-on-Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the
year ending 31 March 2014 and (b) the number of
patients (i) being treated and (ii) expected to be treated
by such services in financial year 2013-14 in each such
area; [154339]
(8) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of Barth
syndrome services in (i) Shropshire and Staffordshire
NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North
Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-Trent and (vi) South
Staffordshire for the year ended 31 March 2014 and
(b) the number of patients (i) receiving treatment and
(ii) for which treatment has been budgeted in that year
for each such area; [154340]
(9) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of
Behcet’s syndrome services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ended 31
March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year for each such area; [154341]
(10) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of
Bardet-Biedl syndrome services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (i)
receiving treatment and (ii) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year for each such area; [154342]
(11) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of
autologous intestinal reconstruction services for adults
in (i) Shropshire and Staffordshire NHS area, (ii)
Shropshire, (iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire,
(v) Stoke-on-Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the
year ending 31 March 2014 and (b) the number of
patients (A) receiving treatment and (B) for which
treatment has been budgeted in that year in each such
area; [154343]
(12) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of
Alstrom syndrome services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154344]
(13) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of
alkaptonuria services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154345]
(14) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
thoracic services in (i) Shropshire and Staffordshire
NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North
Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-Trent and (vi) South
Staffordshire for the year ending 31 March 2014 and
(b) the number of patients (A) receiving treatment and
(B) for which treatment has been budgeted in that year
in each such area; [154346]
(15) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist services for patients infected with HIV in (i)
Shropshire and Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire,
(iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stokeon-Trent
and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year
ending 31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients
(A) receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment
has been budgeted in that year in each such area;
[154347]
(16) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist renal services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154348]
(17) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist orthopaedic services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)

309W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
310W
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154349]
(18) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of
Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome with macroglossia
services in (i) Shropshire and Staffordshire NHS area,
(ii) Shropshire, (iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North
Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-Trent and (vi) South
Staffordshire for the year ending 31 March 2014 and
(b) the number of patients (A) receiving treatment and
(B) for which treatment has been budgeted in that year
in each such area; [154350]
(19) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist pulmonary hypertension services in (i)
Shropshire and Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire,
(iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stokeon-Trent
and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year
ending 31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients
(A) receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment
has been budgeted in that year in each such area;
[154351]
(20) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist opthalmology services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154352]
(21) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist neurosciences services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154353]
(22) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist intestinal failure services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154354]
(23) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist endocrinology services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154355]
(24) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist eating disorder services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154356]
(25) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of adult
specialist cardiac services in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154357]
(26) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of ataxia
telengiectasia services for children in (i) Shropshire and
Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire, (iii)
Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stoke-on-
Trent and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients (A)
receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment has
been budgeted in that year in each such area; [154358]
(27) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
his anticipated budget for the commissioning of
autoimmune paediatric gut syndromes services in (i)
Shropshire and Staffordshire NHS area, (ii) Shropshire,
(iii) Staffordshire, (iv) North Staffordshire, (v) Stokeon-Trent
and (vi) South Staffordshire for the year
ending 31 March 2014 and (b) the number of patients
(A) receiving treatment and (B) for which treatment
has been budgeted in that year in each such area.
[154359]
Anna Soubry: The Shropshire and Staffordshire area
team does not hold a budget for specialised commissioning.
NHS England is responsible for commissioning
specialised services. The prime objective of NHS England
is to drive improvement in the quality of the NHS
services, and the Government will hold them to account
for this through the NHS Mandate.
NHS England is implementing a single operating
model for the commissioning of 143 specialised services.
This replaces the previous arrangements whereby 10 regional
organisations were responsible for commissioning
specialised services and where there was wide variation
in the range, quality and access to specialised services
that were commissioned.
Single nationally agreed service specifications are being
developed for each of the 143 services to ensure that
patients have equitable access to high quality services,
regardless of where they live in England.
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish (a)
the administration budget for the Shropshire and

311W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
312W
Staffordshire NHS Area Team for the year ending
31 March 2014 and (b) the number of staff in that
team. [154325]
Anna Soubry: NHS England advise me that the full
administration budget for the NHS England Shropshire
and Staffordshire Area Team has not yet been finalised.
However, they also advise that the pay budget has been
set at £4.6 million, excluding Family Health Services
staff. There are 74.5 full-time equivalent staff in the
team, excluding Family Health Services staff.
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to (a) publish
the current eligibility criteria for bariatric surgery in
Shropshire and Staffordshire NHS area; and (b) state
whether there are any differences in such criteria in any
of the sub-areas governed by different clinical
commissioning groups in that NHS area. [154326]
Anna Soubry: NHS England is now responsible for
commissioning severe and complex obesity services
including surgery. NHS. England’s ’Clinical Commissioning
Policy on Complex and Specialised Obesity Surgery’
states that it will commission complex and specialised
surgery as a treatment for selected patients with severe
and complex obesity that have not responded to all
other non-invasive therapies, in accordance with the
criteria outlined in this policy.
‘Clinical Commissioning Policy on Complex and
Specialised Obesity Surgery’ has been placed in the
Library.
Health: Unemployment
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what assessment he has made of the effects of
unemployment on levels of wellbeing. [154616]
Norman Lamb: Evidence shows that work is generally
good for health and good for people who have mental
health conditions. Returning to work can be therapeutic
and can address the adverse health effects of unemployment.
Employment is an important determinant of mental
health and wellbeing and is an important factor in
improving the quality of life for people with mental
health problems.
The Department for Work and Pensions recently
published the National Study of Work-search and
Wellbeing, a large-scale study on the extent of mental
health conditions among claimants of jobseeker’s allowance.
This showed that more than one in five people who
claimed jobseeker’s allowance for six months had a
common mental health condition compared with one in
six of those who moved off jobseeker’s allowance before
six months. Evidence published as part of the study also
shows that the likelihood of having a common mental
health condition increased with the number of years
out of work.
Heart Diseases
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
how many out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred in
each of the last 30 years; and what the survival rates
were of such cardiac arrests in (a) England and (b)
each local authority area in England in each such year.
[154805]
Anna Soubry: This information is not collected centrally.
In the “Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes Strategy”,
published in March 2013 an estimate was made that
about 50,000 out of hospital cardiac arrests occur each
year in England. The overall average rate of survival to
hospital discharge was estimated to be 7%. This figure
reflects the fact that resuscitation is not always possible
following a cardiac arrest.
Herbal Medicine
Michael Ellis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what progress he has made on implementing a
statutory register of herbal medicine practitioners; and
when he expects such a register to be in place. [154728]
Dr Poulter: The legislation around this policy is complex
and there are a number of issues that have arisen which
we need to work through. We appreciate that the delay
in going out to consult on this matter is causing concern,
however it is important that any new legislation is
proportionate and fit for purpose.
The Department intends to make an announcement
on the progress of this policy shortly.
In Vitro Fertilisation: West Midlands
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health (1) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish the
number of patients whose applications for treatment by
in vitro fertilisation and related fertility services had
previously been refused received treatment funded by
North Staffordshire PCT in the year ending 31 March
2013; [154329]
(2) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish the
number of (a) patients and (b) GPs whose
applications for in vitro fertilisation treatment had
previously been refused were contacted by (i) North
Staffordshire PCT or (ii) North Staffordshire Clinical
Commissioning Group following the adoption of the
new Infertility and Assisted Reproduction
Commissioning Policy and Eligibility Criteria; [154330]
(3) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish the
amount that was (a) budgeted and (b) spent on in
vitro fertilisation and associated fertility services by (i)
North Staffordshire PCT, (ii) Stoke-on-Trent PCT and
(iii) South Staffordshire PCT in the financial year
ending 31 March (A) 2010, (B) 2011, (C) 2012 and (D)
2013 to date; [154331]
(4) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish the
number of appeals made under the exceptionality
procedures by patients whose applications for in vitro
fertilisation treatment were refused by (a) North
Staffordshire PCT, (b) Stoke-on-Trent PCT and (c)
South Staffordshire PCT in the financial year ending
31 March (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012 and (iv) 2013;
and to publish the number of such appeals to each such
body in each such year which were successful; [154332]
(5) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish
the number of patients whose applications for
intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment were

313W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
314W
refused by (a) North Staffordshire PCT, (b) Stoke-on-
Trent PCT and (c) South Staffordshire PCT in the
financial year ended 31 March (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii)
2012 and (iv) 2013; [154333]
(6) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish the
number of patients whose applications for inter uterine
insemination treatment were refused by (a) North
Staffordshire PCT, (b) Stoke-on-Trent PCT and (c)
Staffordshire PCT in the financial year ended
31 March (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012 and (iv) 2013;
[154334]
(7) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish the
number of patients whose applications for in vitro
fertilisation treatment were refused by (a) North
Staffordshire PCT, (b) Stoke-on-Trent PCT and (c)
Staffordshire PCT in the financial year ended
31 March (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012 and (iv) 2013;
[154335]
(8) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish the
number of patients who received intra-uterine
insemination treatment through (a) North
Staffordshire PCT, (b) Stoke-on-Trent PCT and (c)
South Staffordshire PCT in the financial year ended
31 March (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012 and (iv) 2013;
[154336]
(9) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish the
number of patients who received intracytoplasmic
sperm injection treatment through (a) North
Staffordshire PCT, (b) Stoke-on-Trent PCT and (c)
South Staffordshire PCT in the financial year ended
31 March (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012 and (iv) 2013;
[154337]
(10) if he will direct the Area Director of NHS
England in Shropshire and Staffordshire to publish the
number of patients who received in vitro fertilisation
treatment through (a) North Staffordshire PCT, (b)
Stoke-on-Trent PCT and (c) South Staffordshire PCT
in the financial year ended 31 March (i) 2010, (ii) 2011,
(iii) 2012 and (iv) 2013. [154338]
Anna Soubry: We have no plans to direct NHS England
to publish the information requested. We understand
that the NHS England Area Director for Shropshire
and Staffordshire has written to local hon. Members
about the new commissioning arrangements for health
care.
Kidneys
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what the mortality rates in hospital as a result of acute
kidney injury were in the latest period for which figures
are available. [154072]
Anna Soubry: This information is not available in the
format requested. Information concerning the number
of finished admission episodes (FAEs) with a primary
or secondary diagnosis of acute renal failure and acute
kidney injury according to whether they were alive or
dead at the end of the hospital spell for 2011-12 has
been placed in the following table.
A count of finished admission episodes 1 with a primary or secondary diagnosis 2 of acute renal failure and acute kidney injury 3 according to whether they were alive or
dead 4 at the end of the hospital spell 5 for 2011-12
Status of patients at end of spell
Primary or secondary diagnosis Alive Dead Unknown
Acute renal failure 114,495 36,501 456
Acute Kidney Injury 1,116 62 2
1
An FAE is the first period of inpatient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. FAEs are counted against the year in which the admission
episode finishes. Admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.
2
The number of episodes where this diagnosis was recorded in any of the 20 (14 from 2002-03 to 2006-07 and seven prior to 2002-03) primary and secondary
.diagnosis fields in a Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) record. Each episode is only counted once, even if the diagnosis is recorded in more than one diagnosis field
of the record.
3
Acute Renal Failure/Acute Kidney Injury ICD10 codes
N17.0 Acute renal failure with tubular necrosis
N17.1 Acute renal failure with acute cortical necrosis
N17.2 Acute renal failure with medullary necrosis
N17.8 Other acute renal failure
N17.9 Acute renal failure, unspecified
O90.4 Postpartum acute renal failure
S37.0 Injury of kidney
4
HES data cannot be used to determine the cause of death of a patient while in hospital. Deaths may be analysed by the main diagnosis for which the patient was
being treated but this may not be the underlying cause of death. For example, a patient admitted for a hernia operation (with a primary diagnosis of hernia) may
die from an unrelated heart attack. The Office for National Statistics collects information on the cause of death, wherever it occurs, based on the death certificate
and should be the source of data for analyses on cause of death.
5
This field contains a code which defines the circumstances under which a patient left hospital. For the majority of patients this is when they are discharged by the
consultant. This field is only completed for the last episode in a spell.
Alive:
Discharged on clinical advice or with clinical consent
Self discharged, or discharged by a relative or advocate
Discharged by a mental health review tribunal, the Secretary of State for the Home Department or a court
Dead:
Died
Baby was still born
Unknown:
Not known—a validation error
Source:
Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and Social Care Information Centre. Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the
independent sector.

315W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
316W
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what steps he plans to take to support the
implementation of the forthcoming clinical guideline
on acute kidney injury to be published by the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2013.
[154171]
Norman Lamb: The National Institute for Health
and Care Excellence (NICE) currently expects to publish
its clinical guideline on the prevention, detection and
management of acute kidney injury up to the point of
renal replacement therapy in August 2013.
NHS England and NICE share the objectives of
facilitating high quality care and improved outcomes
for patients, while guiding practitioners and those who
support them in delivering effective and cost effective
care. The two organisations have a partnership agreement
in place and will work together to enhance the dissemination
and adoption of NICE guidance and quality standards.
For instance, NHS England may provide and publish
benchmarking information to help local systems understand
their current performance and both organisations can
make available a range of tools to support the
commissioning and implementation process.
Mental Illness: Surveys
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
when the next adult psychiatric morbidity survey will
be completed. [154228]
Norman Lamb: The Department and the Health and
Social Care Information Centre are currently discussing
plans for the next survey, which should take place in
2014.
Mental Illness: Veterans
Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what recent discussions he has had with his
Scottish counterparts on strategies to (a) prevent and
(b) alleviate mental health issues among veterans.
[154767]
Dr Poulter: Department of Health officials work
closely with their Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish
counterparts through the Ministry of Defence/UK
Departments of Health Partnership Board that meets
regularly. The board agrees how to tackle health issues
for serving members of the armed forces and veterans
across the UK. Following the report by Dr Murrison
‘Fighting Fit’ departmental officials have been in
regular contact with those from Scotland to discuss
the veterans’ mental health recommendations made by
Dr Murrison.
Services funded by the Department in response to
Dr Murrison’s report to help tackle mental health
issues amongst veterans include Big White Wall—an
on-line counselling service. The Department and Ministry
of Defence fund this service (with additional funding
from Help for Heroes) for those currently serving, veterans
and their respective families. More than 2,400 are using
this service. Working with Combat Stress and Rethink
the Department has also put in place a 24-hour veterans’
mental health helpline. Both of these initiatives are
available to those outside of England, including Scottish
veterans and their families.
North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust
Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what information he holds on the cost of
treating foreign nationals at North Tees and Hartlepool
NHS Foundation Trust in each of the last four years.
[155199]
Anna Soubry: The Department does not hold information
on costs incurred by the North Tees and Hartlepool
NHS Foundation Trust through treating overseas visitors
in the years given.
Information on debts written off in relation to overseas
visitors may be available from the Foundation Trust
direct. However, it should be noted that data relating to
overseas visitors might include United Kingdom nationals
visiting from overseas as well as foreign nationals who
are either visiting the UK or residing here without
permission. In addition, the true cost to the national
health service is not limited to the debts the NHS has to
absorb but also the cost of treating those overseas
visitors, including foreign nationals, who are exempt
from charge under regulations and so funded by
commissioners, and the provision of free primary care
to all overseas visitors.
Organs
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) what his policy is on organ allocation; [154208]
(2) what assessment he has made of variations in
organ allocation policies across NHS trusts in England
and Wales. [154275]
Anna Soubry: The organ allocation system in place
works on a United Kingdom-wide basis. It ensures that
patients are treated equitably and that donated organs
are allocated in a fair and unbiased way. The offering
process for organs donated in the UK is specified in
NHS Directions given to NHS Blood and Transplant
by the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon.
Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt),
specifically in paragraph four of the NHS Blood and
Transplant (2005) Directions and associated guidance.
(The Directions can be found at:
www.organdonation.nhs.uk
then enter search item “2005 Directions” and click on
the first result). The allocation schemes have been developed
by the medical profession in consultation with the
Department and specialist advisory groups and there
are specific allocation systems in place for each type of
organ.
It is the remit of NHS Blood and Transplant, as the
national retrieval and allocation organisation for the
UK, to offer organs for transplant. Organs from deceased
donors in the UK are considered a national resource.
The schemes prioritise patients with the most urgent
need and also take into account factors which influence
the chances of a successful transplant, including the age
of the donor and recipient, blood and tissue type,
physical characteristics (such as height and weight) and
the location of the recipient relative to the donor.
Transplants are more likely to be successful if undertaken
as quickly as possible after retrieval.
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) what estimate he has made of the proportion of
hospital trusts that receive donated organs which
allocate donor organs to other trusts; [154212]

317W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
318W
(2) what procedures are in place to enable foundation
trusts to (a) offer and (b) access donated organs from
other foundation trusts. [154274]
Anna Soubry: No estimate has been made of the
proportion of hospital trusts that receive donated organs
which allocate organs to other trusts.
The allocation system in place works on a United
Kingdom-wide basis and whether a trust is a foundation
trust or otherwise has no bearing. There are 28 hospitals
in the UK that are licensed to perform solid organ
transplants and some of these hospitals transplant more
than one type of organ. Organs for transplant in these
hospitals are retrieved from over 200 hospitals throughout
the UK.
The allocation systems in place ensure that patients
are treated equitably and that donated organs are allocated
in a fair and unbiased way. It is the remit of NHS Blood
and Transplant, as the national retrieval and allocation
organisation for the UK, to offer organs for transplant
in line with directions given to them by the Secretary of
State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for
South West Surrey (Mr Hunt).
Organs: Scotland
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what recent discussions he has had with the
Cabinet Secretary for Health in the Scottish
Government regarding cross-border organ allocation.
[154426]
Anna Soubry: No discussions have taken place with
the Cabinet Secretary for Health in the Scottish Government
regarding cross-border organ allocation.
The organ allocation system in place works on a
United Kingdom-wide basis and organs are regularly
transported within the UK. This ensures that patients
are treated equitably and that donated organs are allocated
in a fair and unbiased way based on the patient’s need,
and the importance of achieving the closest possible
match between donor and recipient. The rules for allocating
organs donated in the UK are determined by the medical
profession in consultation with other health professionals,
the Department and specialist advisory groups. The
offering process is specified in NHS Directions given to
NHS Blood and Transplant by the Secretary of State
for Health, specifically in paragraph four of the NHS
Blood and Transplant (2005) Directions and associated
guidance.
Pay
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what guidance his Department issues on the actions
that would result in the suspension or removal of a
bonus payment to an official in his Department; what
the process is for clawing back such bonuses; and on
how many occasions this has happened in each of the
last five years. [154999]
Dr Poulter: The Department does not issue specific
guidance on the actions that would result in the suspension
or removal of a bonus payment for an official.
However the withdrawal or withholding of performance
related pay (which includes nonconsolidated performance
related payments) is a potential sanction in disciplinary
proceedings.
In the last five years the Department has not removed
or suspended any non consolidated performance related
payments to its officials.
Publications
Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health how much his Department spent on
subscriptions to academic journals published by (a)
Reed-Elsevier, (b) Wiley-Blackwell, (c) Springer and
(d) any other academic publisher in each of the last
five years. [154496]
Dr Poulter: The Department’s spend on academic
journals over the last five years is as follows (given as
calendar years to align with subscriptions). Answers are
given for any and all known imprints of the requested
publishers.
£
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Reed- 23,650 27,823.71 20,235.46 21,6120.09 16,350.75
Elsevier
Wiley- 14,891.80 17,887.43 17,206.53 18,459.37 17,281.19
Blackwell
Springer 5,054.89 5,576.69 4,628.16 4,999.86 4,537.55
Other 109,894.65 111,472.53 80,124.35 87,950.56 60,236.24
Transplant Surgery: Waiting Lists
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b)
proportion of people on waiting lists who receive organ
transplants in (i) North West England, (ii) Stretford
and Urmston constituency and (iii) England. [154276]
Anna Soubry: The information can be found in the
following table. Care should be taken when interpreting
percentages based on small numbers.
Although no period of time is specified in the question,
figures in the table cover new registrations over a three
year period 2008-09 to 2010-11. This is because numbers
of registrations and transplants for the Stretford and
Urmston constituency are low and looking at a three
year period allows for meaningful comparisons to be
drawn.
Number of new registrants to the organ donor waiting list and transplants in North West England, Stretford and Urmston and England by organ in 2008-11
Organ Strategic health authority area New registrations 1 Transplants 2 Proportion 3 (percentage)
Kidney 4 North West 1,034 757 73.21
Stretford and Urmston 15 13 86.67
England 7,788 6,244 80.17

319W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
320W
Number of new registrants to the organ donor waiting list and transplants in North West England, Stretford and Urmston and England by organ in 2008-11
Organ Strategic health authority area New registrations 1 Transplants 2 Proportion 3 (percentage)
Pancreas 5 North West 83 50 60.24
Stretford and Urmston 1 0 0.00
England 771 517 67.06
Heart 6 North West 71 42 59.15
Stretford and Urmston 2 2 3
100.00
England 491 318 64.77
Lung 7 North West 82 58 70.73
Stretford and Urmston 1 3 3
300.00
England 531 378 71.19
Liver 8 North West 290 189 65.17
Stretford and Urmston 5 3 60.00
England 2,393 1,576 65.86
1
New registrations to the organ donor waiting list between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2011.
2
Transplants which took place between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2011.
3
Not all of the transplants that took place in the period will have been for people who were added to the waiting list in that period, additionally some people who were
added to the waiting list during the period will have had transplants after.
4
Kidney only registrations
5
Pancreas only and kidney/pancreas registrations
6
Heart only transplants
7
Lung only transplants
8
Liver only transplants
Source:
NHS Blood and Transplant
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what proportion of patients on an organ transplant
waiting list in each region of England waited more
than (a) six months, (b) 12 months and (c) 18 months
for each type of organ transplanted in the latest period
for which figures are available. [154277]
Anna Soubry: The information requested can be found
in the following table. Care should be taken when
interpreting percentages based on small numbers.
Table: Patients registered on the United Kingdom organ transplant list waiting six, 12 and 18 months for an organ transplant by organ and English region, 1 April 2008
to 31 March 2011
Strategic health authority
area 1
New
registrations Still waiting six months 1 Still waiting 12 months 1 Still waiting at 18 months 1
No. % No. % No. %
Kidney 2 North East 308 252 81.8 199 79.0 155 50.3
North West 1,034 908 87.8 771 84.9 667 64.5
Yorkshire and The Humber 678 594 87.6 528 88.9 443 65.3
East Midlands 736 634 86.1 557 87.9 487 66.2
West Midlands 939 828 88.2 752 90.8 668 71.1
East of England 740 594 80.3 462 77.8 374 50.5
London 1,591 1,396 87.7 1,237 88.6 1,092 68.6
South East Coast 470 406 86.4 348 85.7 318 67.7
South Central 577 518 89.8 436 84.2 371 64.3
South West 715 620 86.7 518 83.5 444 62.1
England 7,788 6,750 86.7 5,808 86.0 5,019 64.4
Pancreas 3 North East 35 26 74.3 21 80.8 12 34.3
North West 83 65 78.3 58 89.2 45 54.2
Yorkshire and The Humber 44 33 75.0 27 81.8 23 52.3
East Midlands 59 35 59.3 26 74.3 20 33.9
West Midlands 83 66 79.5 61 92.4 52 62.7
East of England 91 47 51.6 34 72.3 23 25.3
London 104 62 59.6 50 80.6 36 34.6
South East Coast 54 38 70.4 26 68.4 13 24.1

321W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
322W
Table: Patients registered on the United Kingdom organ transplant list waiting six, 12 and 18 months for an organ transplant by organ and English region, 1 April 2008
to 31 March 2011
Strategic health authority
area 1
New
registrations Still waiting six months 1 Still waiting 12 months 1 Still waiting at 18 months 1
No. % No. % No. %
South Central 83 67 80.7 61 91.0 50 60.2
South West 135 89 65.9 72 80.9 58 43.0
England 771 528 68.5 436 82.6 332 43.1
Heart 4 North East 44 13 29.5 11 84.6 10 22.7
Northwest 71 20 28.2 13 65.0 8 11.3
Yorkshire and The Humber 47 19 40.4 13 68.4 8 17.0
East Midlands 40 12 30.0 8 66.7 5 12.5
West Midlands 69 16 23.2 10 62.5 8 11.6
East of England 54 18 33.3 12 66.7 6 11.1
London 57 20 35.1 15 75.0 11 19.3
South East Coast 43 13 30.2 7 53.8 6 14.0
South Central 36 13 36.1 8 61.5 7 19.4
South West 30 10 33.3 7 70.0 6 20.0
England 491 154 31.4 104 67.5 75 15.3
Lung 5 North East 36 13 36.1 9 69.2 6 16.7
North West 82 51 62.2 33 64.7 19 23.2
Yorkshire and The Humber 56 24 42.9 14 58.3 10 17.9
East Midlands 45 24 53.3 10 41.7 6 13.3
West Midlands 59 26 44.1 14 53.8 8 13.6
East of England 82 30 36.6 15 50.0 9 11.0
London 51 30 58.8 14 46.7 8 15.7
South East Coast 35 12 34.3 6 50.0 3 8.6
South Central 41 19 46.3 12 63.2 9 22.0
South West 44 22 50.0 11 50.0 6 13.6
England 531 251 47.3 138 55.0 84 15.8
Liver 6 North East 167 57 34.1 32 56.1 19 11.4
North West 290 100 34.5 57 57.0 27 9.3
Yorkshire and The Humber 248 77 31.0 41 53.2 17 6.9
East Midlands 154 32 20.8 16 50.0 11 7.1
West Midlands 253 47 18.6 19 40.4 11 4.3
East of England 279 75 26.9 28 37.3 11 3.9
London 440 136 30.9 65 47.8 29 6.6
South East Coast 190 39 20.5 21 53.8 7 3.7
South Central 179 54 30.2 27 50.0 13 7.3
South West 193 66 34.2 31 47.0 10 5.2
England 2,393 683 28.5 337 49.3 155 6.5
1
Regions are based on strategic health authority areas
2
Kidney only registrations
3
Pancreas only and kidney/pancreas registrations
4
Heart only transplants
5
Lung only transplants
6
Liver only transplants
Source:
NHS Blood and Transplant
Tuberculosis
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what research is currently being commissioned
by his Department into tuberculosis. [155017]
Dr Poulter: The Department is funding a wide range
of research on tuberculosis through the National Institute
for Health Research and the Policy Research Programme
and has no current calls for proposals for research on
specific aspects of this disease.
Current research includes a £2 million programme of
research on improving the management and control of
tuberculosis among hard to reach groups, and a £1.7 million
study of interferon gamma tests for the rapid identification
of active tuberculosis disease.

323W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
324W
Video Games
Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health how many cases of addiction to computer
games have been recorded in the NHS in each of the
last five years. [154679]
Norman Lamb: This is information is not collected
centrally.
Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health whether his Department has issued any
guidance on the maximum amount of time that
individuals should spend in front of computer or
television screens each day. [154680]
Anna Soubry: The Department has not issued any
guidance on the maximum amount of time that individuals
should spend in front of computer or television screens
each day.
Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what assessment his Department has made of
the effects of computer game addiction on children and
young people’s mental health. [154682]
Norman Lamb: The Department has made no such
assessment.
Warrington Hospital
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
how many patients have been treated in the accident
and emergency department of Warrington Hospital in
each of the last five years for which figures are
available; and what estimate he has made of the
number of patients who are likely to require treatment
at that department in each of the next five years.
[155220]
Anna Soubry: The information is not held in the
format requested. The total accident and emergency
attendances for Warrington and Halton NHS Foundation
Trust in each of the last five years 2008-09 to 2012-13
are shown in the following table:
Total A&E attendances
2008-09 91,548
2009-10 94,168
2010-11 98,114
2011-12 99,778
2012-13 101,375
Notes:
1. A&E data are not held at hospital site level so data for the relevant hospital
trust have been provided.
2. Estimates of future A&E attendances are not collected by the Department.
Source:
NHS England 2008-09 to 2010-11 Unify2 Data Collection QMAE and 2011-12
to 2012-13 Unify2 Data Collection Weekly SiteRep
WORK AND PENSIONS
Children: Poverty
Mr David Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what recent estimate he has made
of the number of children expected to be living in (a)
relative and (b) absolute poverty in each of the next 10
years. [155170]
Esther McVey: The Child Poverty Act 2010 sets four
income-based UK-wide targets to be met by 2020,
including the proportion of children living in households
with relative low income and absolute low income.
The number of children in poverty based on relative
and absolute measures for 2010-11, the most recent
period for which figures are available, can be found in
the Households Below Average Income series published
at:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2011/
index.php?page=contents
The Government do not publish forecasts of the
number of children living in income poverty. The number
of children in poverty is dependent on a number of
factors which cannot be reliably predicted, including
the median income.
Income matters but considering this in isolation fails
to properly reflect the reality of child poverty in the UK
today. The most recent figures showed that 300,000
children moved out of relative income poverty. In fact,
this was caused by a fall in the median income. For such
children, life remained the same: disadvantage continued
to limit aspiration and they were no better off. We have
recently consulted on developing better measurements
of child poverty, which include income but provide a
more accurate picture of the reality of child poverty. We
are now analysing the responses to that consultation,
and will publish our conclusions in the summer.
Disability Living Allowance
Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions how many disability living allowance
claimants are in work. [155217]
Esther McVey: Disability living allowance is a benefit
that can be claimed both in and out of work and as a
result the Department does not routinely collect information
on a employment status during the claim process.
However, the Department has previously published
analysis estimating the employment rate of DLA claimants
aged 16 to 64, using the Family Resources Survey which
can be found here:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2011/
analysis_of_disability_living_allowance_DLA_awards.pdf
Employment and Support Allowance: Scotland
Pamela Nash: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions how many people in Scotland were
underpaid employment and support allowance as a
result of error by his Department in each of the last
three years; and what the total sum underpaid was in
each such year. [155752]
Mr Hoban: The information is not available in the
format requested.
G4S
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions what the current level of expenditure by
his Department is on contracts with G4S; and how
much was spent by his Department on contracts with
G4S in each year since 2008. [154563]

325W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
326W
Mr Hoban: The total amount of expenditure by the
Department to G4S (and Group 4 before they merged
with Securicor in 2010-11) in each financial year since
2007-08 is detailed in the following table.
Financial year Merged supplier name Spend (£)
2007-08 Group 4 102,973
2008-09 Group 4 70,703
2009-10 Group 4 129,099
2010-11 Group 4 Securicor
80,293
(G4S)
2011-12 Group 4 Securicor
13,789,498
(G4S)
2012-13 G4S Group 32,122,741
G4S were awarded a Work programme contract in
2011-12 which accounts for the large increase in expenditure
in the last two financial years.
Homelessness
Sheila Gilmore: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions if he will meet homelessness
organisations to assess the effectiveness of the toolkit
for identification of homelessness by Jobcentre Plus
Advisers. [155296]
Mr Hoban: There is no specific toolkit for the
identification of homelessness. However, Jobcentre Plus
advisers are equipped with the necessary guidance and
training to identify and provide an appropriate level of
tailored support for the homeless, as well as other
disadvantaged groups. As a priority group, the homeless
are able to access additional support through Jobcentre
Plus advisers to enter employment, including early access
to the Work programme. The guidance which supports
Jobcentre Plus advisers is subject to regular review to
ensure its effectiveness for helping to tackle homelessness
and the barriers it creates to employment.
Housing Benefit: Greater London
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of
how the allocation of discretionary housing payments
in respect of the benefit cap reflects the effect of higher
rents in London; and if he will make a statement.
[155283]
Steve Webb: An additional £65 million funding towards
discretionary housing payment (DHP) was made available
in 2013-14 to provide short-term support to those affected
by the benefit cap. Of these additional funds 90% was
allocated based on the estimated volumes of cases
geographically, weighted to account for amount that
the households lose due to the cap.
Based on this method an equivalent household living
in a high rent area would represent a greater weight in
allocation of DHP funds. Therefore local authorities
within which these households fall were allocated greater
amounts towards DHPs.
The remaining funds were allocated uniformly for
preventative work and to account for differing supply-side
issues.
Pay
Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions whether staff employed by Telereal
Trillium in his Department’s premises in Leeds are paid
the living wage of £7.45 per hour. [154649]
Mr Hoban: Telereal Trillium employees, and their
contractors based in Leeds at DWP buildings are as
follows:
Telereal Trillium: all staff are paid above the living wage rate.
Telereal Trillium cleaners: paid at, or in excess of, the minimum
wage rate. Some staff will be paid in excess of the living wage rate.
Telereal Trillium catering staff: paid at, or in excess of, the
minimum wage rate. Some staff will be paid in excess of the living
wage rate.
Telereal Trillium furniture suppliers and porters: all staff are
paid in excess of the living wage rate.
Telereal Trillium maintenance engineers: all staff are paid in
excess of the living wage rate.
Telereal Trillium security guards: public facing guards are paid
in excess of the living wage rate. Non-public facing guards are
paid in excess of the minimum wage.
Personal Independence Payment
Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions if his Department will undertake
unannounced and anonymous mystery shopper visits
at new assessment centres for personal independence
payments. [155207]
Esther McVey: Personal independence payment (PIP)
assessments will take place in existing healthcare centres,
at claimants’ homes and in specific PIP assessment
centres. All assessment centres must meet the Department’s
published requirements for accessibility, security, travel
time and claimant experience. DWP is visiting a sample
of these centres to ensure these requirements are being
met. In addition, we are seeking feedback from claimants
and the companions they are encouraged to bring to
their assessment.
Poverty: Children
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number
of disabled children living in poverty in Bassetlaw
constituency. [154165]
Esther McVey: It is not possible to provide figures for
Bassetlaw due to small sample sizes. In 2010-11 across
the UK there were 100,000 disabled children living in
families with below 60% of relative median income,
Before Housing Costs. Figures are rounded to the nearest
100,000. Low income figures are published annually in
the Households below Average Income publication available
here:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai
The Government launched a consultation on measuring
child poverty on 15 November 2012. The consultation
sought views on changing the way child poverty is
measured to ensure accurate measurement of the number
of children affected in the UK. The Government believes
that, in addition to median income, it is important to
take other elements into account, such as housing and
health. The consultation closed on the 15 February

327W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
328W
2013. The responses to the consultation are currently
being analysed, and the Government’s response will be
published in the, summer.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions what assessment he has made of the
effects of tax and benefit reforms implemented since
2010 on levels of child poverty. [154782]
Esther McVey: I refer the hon. Member to the answers
to questions 135069 on 9 January 2013, Official Report,
column 312W, 135070 on 9 January 2013, Official Report,
column 313W, and 135071 on 9 January 2013, Official
Report, column 313W.
The Government do not believe that measuring income
in isolation captures the reality of poverty in the UK,
which is why it has consulted on better measures of
child poverty. We will publish our response to that
consultation in the summer.
Social Security Benefits: Veterans
Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions (1) how many former service
personnel who have served in either Iraq or
Afghanistan are in receipt of work-related benefits;
[154572]
(2) how many former service personnel who have
served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are in receipt of
disability-related benefits. [154573]
Mr Hoban: The information requested is not available.
State Retirement Pensions
Mark Hendrick: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions how many people will be affected
by the planned increase in the number of qualifying
years needed to gain a full state pension due to take
place in April 2016. [154131]
Steve Webb: Under the current system, 30 qualifying
years of paid or credited national insurance contributions
are required for a full basic state pension, currently
£110.15 a week. Additional state pension entitlement is
based on national insurance contributions paid or credited
over the full course of working life.
Entitlement to the full amount of the single-tier
pension, assumed to be £144 a week, (in 2012-13 earnings
terms, as detailed in the Single Tier Impact Assessment)
will be based on a test of 35 qualifying years of national
insurance contributions or credits. It is estimated that
around 85% of people reaching state pension age in
2020 will have at least 35 qualifying years. It is estimated
around 5% of people reaching state pension age in 2020
will have between 30 and 35 qualifying years.
Where someone does not have the full 35 years needed
for the full single-tier pension, they will receive a pension
that is pro rata to this amount according to the number
of qualifying years that they have built up, subject to
them satisfying the Minimum Qualifying Period of
between seven and 10 years. Someone with 30 years
with no additional state pension and never contracted
out would therefore get a pension of 30/35 of the full
rate or around £123 per week (based on the illustrative
£144 starting rate used in the single-tier White Paper).
For those people with pre-implementation national
insurance records, at the point we implement the new
system, we will calculate their national insurance records
under the rules of the old system (basic state pension
plus additional state pension, less any adjustment for
contracting out) and under the new system (single-tier
pension less any adjustment for contracting out). We
will then base someone’s state pension on the higher of
these two values; in the single-tier White Paper we call
this figure a ’Foundation Amount’.
Where someone’s Foundation Amount in 2016 is
below the full single-tier rate, many people will have the
opportunity to increase this amount through additional
single-tier qualifying years they gain before reaching
state pension age, at a rate of 1/35th of the full single-tier
rate. This could be through qualifying years of national
insurance contributions through work or paying voluntary
contributions or national insurance credits.
Note:
Results are based on the Department’s PENSIM2 model. This is
a dynamic micro-simulation model designed to project pensioners’
incomes to 2100. As such, the model is best suited to comparing
long-term trends and differences between groups rather than to
providing short range estimates. The figures should only be used
as an indication of state pension outcomes and estimates are
subject to sampling uncertainty and are rounded to the nearest
five percentage points.
Unemployed People: Internet
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the
number of jobseekers who lack skills to use the internet
in (a) Glasgow North West constituency, (b) Glasgow,
(c) Scotland and (d) the UK. [154595]
Mr Hoban: Employers are increasingly advertising
vacancies only via the internet, and requiring IT skills
as part of the specifications for jobs. So we are currently
piloting a Digital Skills Assessment Tool in four Jobcentres
in the East of Scotland. This is used by advisers to
assess claimant’s digital ability. The Department has
not made any such estimate however The Carnegie
Trust has published a report on Digital Exclusion in
Glasgow which can be found at:
http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/2013/acrossthe-divide---full-report
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had
with Jobcentre Plus staff about whether jobseekers do
not accurately portray their internet and IT skills.
[154596]
Mr Hoban: There have been no such discussions.
However, all claimants have a Personal Adviser whose
role it is to support them back into work. If an Adviser
identifies the need for IT skills training they can discuss
this with the jobseeker and arrange for suitable training.
We are currently piloting a Digital Skills Assessment
Tool in 4 Jobcentres in the East of Scotland. This is
used by advisers to assess claimant’s digital ability.
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what research his Department has
done into the accuracy of self-assessment of internet
and IT skills by jobseekers. [154597]

329W
Written Answers
15 MAY 2013
Written Answers
330W
Mr Hoban: We have done no such research. We are
however trialling a digital skills assessment tool in four
jobcentres in Scotland. This is designed to assist advisers
identify and assess claimants digital skills.
Universal Credit
Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions how much of the £2 billion universal
credit spending envelope was spent in (a) 2011-12 and
(b) 2012-13; and how much he forecasts will be spent
in (i) 2013-14 and (ii) 2014-15. [155216]
Mr Hoban: Of the £2 billion budget, spend in 2011-12
was 5%, and in 2012-13 16%. Plans continue to be
developed to support the gradual roll-out from autumn
2013 within budget.
Universal Credit: North West
Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions (1) for what reasons acceptance of claims
for universal credit in pathfinder project areas of
Wigan, Warrington and Oldham has been deferred;
[154300]
(2) what assessment he has made of (a) the financial
implications and (b) the administrative cost of the
deferral of acceptance of claims for universal credit in
the pathfinder project areas of Wigan, Warrington and
Oldham; [154301]
(3) what assessment he has made of the number of
claimants who are affected by the deferral of
acceptance of claims for universal credit in the
pathfinder project areas of Wigan, Warrington and
Oldham. [154302]
Mr Hoban: We have always made clear that the
Pathfinder had been planned as an early implementation
of universal credit. Any question of deferring the take-on
of claims, or any costs associated with deferral, does
not therefore arise. Our Jobcentres in Oldham, Wigan,
and Warrington are already trialling elements of universal
credit, including the new Claimant Commitment and
signing people onto Universal Jobmatch. People living
in Ashton-Under-Lyne are the first able to make new
claims to universal credit. That will expand to Wigan,
Warrington and Oldham when we are satisfied, on the
basis of experience in Ashton-Under-Lyne, that it is
appropriate to do so.
Universal Credit: Scotland
Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions whether any changes have been made to
the designated date for the introduction of universal
credit in Scotland; and whether he anticipates any
future changes to the timetable for the introduction of
that programme. [154299]
Mr Hoban: Decisions on the timing of the roll-out of
universal credit in Scotland have not yet been finalised.
Work Programme
Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions (1) what proportion of employment and
support allowance claimants in (a) the work related
activity group and (b) support group find paid
employment; [155218]
(2) what the off flows from the (a) work related
activity and (b) support groups have been to date, by
reasons for leaving. [155219]
Mr Hoban: The information requested on off-flows
from ESA claimants in (a) work related activity and
(b) support groups can be found at:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=tabtool
Guidance for users is available at:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/tabtools/guidance.pdf
The information requested on the reasons for leaving
employment and support allowance (ESA) is not available
but in 2012 the Department published research on the
destinations of a sample of claimants leaving jobseeker’s
allowance, income support and employment and support
allowance. The research report is available here:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2011-2012/
rrep791.pdf
Section 4.4 looks at the outcomes of claimants leaving
ESA in this sample, including the proportion going into
paid work.
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what the spending budget in the
Spending Review for the Work Programme was in (a)
2011-12, (b) 2012-13 and (c) 2013-14. [155291]
Mr Hoban: The spending review 2010 settlement
included the following resource DEL budgets for the
Work programme:
£ million
2011-12 433
2012-13 737
2013-14 636
Sheila Gilmore: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions (1) if he will strengthen the
minimum service standards for the Work programme
to provide a better service for homeless people; [155297]
(2) what steps he is taking to improve job outcomes
for homeless people in the Work programme. [155288]
Mr Hoban: Providers set out their minimum service
standards as part of their bids for Work programme
contracts. These standards have been published and
providers must make them clear to all participants
when they join the Work programme. The Department
for Work and Pensions carries out regular compliance
checks to ensure these standards are being met.
If a participant is concerned that their provider is not
meeting their minimum service standards, then they are
able to raise the issue with their provider. If the participant
is not satisfied with their provider’s response, they are
then able to escalate the complaint to the Independent
Case Examiner.
I have also set up the Work Programme: Building
Best Practice group, which is independently chaired by
Andrew Sells. This group will set up a framework to
promote the sharing of best practice, with a particular
focus on the harder to help such as claimants who are
homeless. It will also explore best practice for minimum
service levels, to ensure that they are transparent and
measurable.

5MC
Ministerial Corrections
15 MAY 2013
Ministerial Corrections
6MC
Ministerial Correction
Wednesday 15 May 2013
WORK AND PENSIONS
State Retirement Pensions
Yasmin Qureshi: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions how many people will not get a full
pension as a result of any increase in the qualifying
period from 30 to 35 years. [151058]
[Official Report, 25 April 2013, Vol. 561, c. 1090W.]
Letter of correction from Steve Webb:
An error has been identified in the written answer
given to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin
Qureshi) on 25 April 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Steve Webb: The single-tier pension will require
35 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions
or credits for the full amount. Based on the illustrative
amount of £144 for the full single-tier pension in 2012-13
terms set out in the White Paper, 30 qualifying years
under the single-tier scheme would be equivalent to a
value of £123.43 a week.
Under the current state pension system, people reaching
State Pension age today require 30 qualifying years for
the full amount of basic State Pension currently £107.00
a week and can make contributions to the State Second
Pension for each year in their working life. When the
single-tier pension is implemented we will recognise
contributions made under the current system and translate
them into a single-tier pension foundation amount.
In the long term around 85% of people will get the
full single-tier pension under the proposals outlined in
the White Paper published in January. Chart 4.1 shows
the proportion who will receive the full single-tier pension
by the year in which people reach State Pension age. In
the early years of the reforms most people receiving less
than the full single-tier amount will do so because they
will have a deduction applied to take into account
periods when they were contracted out of the additional
State Pension, rather than because they have fewer than
35 qualifying years.
The correct answer should have been:
Steve Webb: The single-tier pension will require
35 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions
or credits for the full amount. Based on the illustrative
amount of £144 for the full single-tier pension in 2012-13
terms set out in the White Paper, 30 qualifying years
under the single-tier scheme would be equivalent to a
value of £123.43 a week.
Under the current state pension system, people reaching
State Pension age today require 30 qualifying years for
the full amount of basic State Pension currently £110.15
a week and can make contributions to the State Second
Pension for each year in their working life. When the
single-tier pension is implemented we will recognise
contributions made under the current system and translate
them into a single-tier pension foundation amount.
In the long term around 85% of people will get the
full single-tier pension under the proposals outlined in
the White Paper published in January. Chart 4.1 shows
the proportion who will receive the full single-tier pension
by the year in which people reach State Pension age. In
the early years of the reforms most people receiving less
than the full single-tier amount will do so because they
will have a deduction applied to take into account
periods when they were contracted out of the additional
State Pension, rather than because they have fewer than
35 qualifying years.

ORAL ANSWERS
Wednesday 15 May 2013
Col. No.
PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 627
Engagements.......................................................... 627
WALES...................................................................... 617
Aerospace Industry................................................ 617
Corporation Tax .................................................... 626
Disabled People (Welfare Policies) ......................... 625
Enterprise Zones.................................................... 622
Col. No.
WALES—continued
Government’s Fiscal Policies.................................. 621
Housing Benefit ..................................................... 618
Living Standards.................................................... 626
Measles Outbreak .................................................. 620
National Assembly for Wales ................................. 625
National Transport Infrastructure (M4)................. 623
Overseas Students .................................................. 624
WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Wednesday 15 May 2013
Col. No.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 39WS
EU Informal Competitiveness Council .................. 39WS
Col. No.
TREASURY .............................................................. 40WS
UK Debt Management Office................................ 40WS
WRITTEN ANSWERS
Wednesday 15 May 2013
Col. No.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL .......................................... 201W
Acquittals .............................................................. 201W
Buildings................................................................ 201W
Convictions............................................................ 202W
Crown Prosecution Service..................................... 203W
GPT....................................................................... 204W
Prosecutions........................................................... 204W
Public Service: Misconduct .................................... 206W
Serious Fraud Office .............................................. 206W
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 257W
Apprentices............................................................ 257W
Buildings................................................................ 257W
Employment Schemes: Corby ................................ 260W
G4S........................................................................ 260W
Insolvency.............................................................. 261W
Land Use: Wales .................................................... 262W
Overseas Students: Bahamas.................................. 262W
Supermarkets: Competition ................................... 262W
Zoos....................................................................... 263W
CABINET OFFICE................................................... 263W
Average Earnings: Clwyd ....................................... 263W
Conditions of Employment.................................... 264W
Enfield ................................................................... 264W
Families ................................................................. 264W
Government Departments: Cybercrime ................. 266W
Influenza................................................................ 266W
Internet: Glasgow .................................................. 266W
Pay......................................................................... 267W
Population ............................................................. 267W
Press: Subscriptions ............................................... 267W
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.................. 267W
Senior Civil Servants: Pensions .............................. 268W
Suicide ................................................................... 269W
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 283W
Affordable Housing................................................ 283W
Coastal Areas......................................................... 283W
Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service ....................... 284W
EU Grants and Loans............................................ 284W
Col. No.
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—
continued
Fire Services........................................................... 283W
Fire Services: Life Expectancy ............................... 284W
Fire Stations: West Midlands ................................. 285W
Hotels: Heating...................................................... 285W
Housing Improvement ........................................... 285W
Local Government: Allowances and Pay................ 287W
Local Government: Procurement ........................... 287W
Non-domestic Rates: Chemists’ Shops................... 288W
Non-domestic Rates: Empty Property.................... 288W
Parking .................................................................. 288W
Planning................................................................. 288W
Publications ........................................................... 289W
Scotland................................................................. 289W
Shops: Empty Property.......................................... 290W
Temporary Employment ........................................ 290W
Urban Areas .......................................................... 290W
Urban Areas: Regeneration.................................... 292W
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT ..........................
Festivals and Special Occasions .............................
Gambling...............................................................
Gambling: Internet ................................................
Members: Correspondence ....................................
Public Libraries: Electronic Publishing ..................
Theatre...................................................................
WiFi: Non-domestic Rates.....................................
DEFENCE.................................................................
Afghanistan ...........................................................
Aircraft Carriers ....................................................
Falkland Islands: Rescue Services ..........................
Kenya.....................................................................
Unmanned Air Vehicles .........................................
Unmanned Air Vehicles: Guided Weapons ............
EDUCATION............................................................
Academies..............................................................
Buildings................................................................
Children in Care.....................................................
222W
222W
223W
223W
223W
223W
224W
224W
220W
220W
220W
220W
220W
221W
222W
248W
248W
248W
249W

Col. No.
EDUCATION—continued
Children’s Centres.................................................. 249W
Class Sizes: Bassetlaw ............................................ 250W
Climate Change: Curriculum ................................. 250W
Curriculum ............................................................ 251W
Enfield ................................................................... 251W
Free School Meals: Bassetlaw ................................ 252W
Freedom of Information ........................................ 252W
G4S........................................................................ 253W
GCSE .................................................................... 253W
Heart Diseases: First Aid....................................... 253W
Overseas Students: Bahamas.................................. 253W
Publications ........................................................... 254W
Vocational Training................................................ 254W
Young People: Carers............................................. 256W
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE .....................
Carbon Sequestration ............................................
Civil Nuclear Constabulary: Firearms ...................
Coal .......................................................................
Energy....................................................................
Energy: Competition..............................................
Energy: Housing ....................................................
Energy: Job Creation .............................................
Energy: Prices ........................................................
EU Energy Policy...................................................
Green Deal Scheme................................................
Heating ..................................................................
Hinkley Point C Power Station ..............................
Natural Gas: Bassetlaw..........................................
Natural Gas: Imports.............................................
Natural Gas: North East........................................
Nuclear Power Stations..........................................
Nuclear Power Stations: Construction ...................
Ofgem ....................................................................
Power Stations .......................................................
Renewable Energy..................................................
Wind Power ...........................................................
Wind Power: Seas and Oceans ...............................
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL
AFFAIRS...............................................................
Animal Welfare: Dogs............................................
G4S........................................................................
Horses: Databases..................................................
Livestock: Exports .................................................
Livestock: Waste Disposal .....................................
Pesticides................................................................
Recycling: St Albans ..............................................
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE.....
Arctic .....................................................................
Bahrain ..................................................................
British Indian Ocean Territory...............................
British Overseas Territories....................................
Burma....................................................................
Egypt .....................................................................
Enfield ...................................................................
Entry Clearances: Charities....................................
Geneva Conventions ..............................................
Inflation.................................................................
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012..................
Saudi Arabia ..........................................................
Serbia: Kosovo.......................................................
Syria.......................................................................
228W
228W
229W
229W
229W
230W
230W
232W
232W
234W
234W
234W
235W
235W
235W
236W
236W
237W
237W
237W
238W
238W
239W
246W
246W
246W
246W
246W
247W
247W
247W
239W
239W
240W
240W
241W
241W
242W
243W
243W
243W
244W
244W
244W
245W
245W
HEALTH................................................................... 292W
Accident and Emergency Departments: East
Midlands............................................................ 292W
Accident and Emergency Departments: East of
England ............................................................. 293W
Col. No.
HEALTH—continued
Accident and Emergency Departments: Kettering . 295W
Accident and Emergency Departments: North
West ................................................................... 296W
Anaemia ................................................................ 298W
Buildings................................................................ 298W
Cancer ................................................................... 299W
Cancer: Clinical Commissioning Groups ............... 300W
Coeliac Disease ...................................................... 301W
Defibrillators ......................................................... 301W
Drugs..................................................................... 302W
Drugs: Health Education ....................................... 302W
Electronic Cigarettes .............................................. 302W
Enfield ................................................................... 303W
Flour: Additives..................................................... 304W
Health Services ...................................................... 305W
Health Services: EU Nationals............................... 306W
Health Services: West Midlands............................. 306W
Health: Unemployment.......................................... 311W
Heart Diseases ....................................................... 311W
Herbal Medicine .................................................... 312W
In Vitro Fertilisation: West Midlands..................... 312W
Kidneys.................................................................. 314W
Mental Illness: Surveys .......................................... 315W
Mental Illness: Veterans ......................................... 315W
North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation
Trust .................................................................. 316W
Organs ................................................................... 316W
Organs: Scotland.................................................... 317W
Pay......................................................................... 317W
Publications ........................................................... 318W
Transplant Surgery: Waiting Lists.......................... 318W
Tuberculosis........................................................... 321W
Video Games.......................................................... 323W
Warrington Hospital.............................................. 323W
HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 207W
Afghanistan ........................................................... 207W
Armed Conflict: Syria............................................ 208W
Asylum: Kuwait ..................................................... 208W
Drugs: Misuse........................................................ 209W
Entry Clearances: Palestinians ............................... 209W
G4S........................................................................ 210W
Inflation................................................................. 210W
Members: Correspondence .................................... 210W
Pay......................................................................... 211W
Police: Recruitment................................................ 211W
Police: Road Traffic Control .................................. 212W
Scotland................................................................. 212W
UK Border Agency: Scotland ................................ 212W
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 279W
Bangladesh............................................................. 279W
Biofuels.................................................................. 279W
Consultants............................................................ 280W
Developing Countries: Nutrition ........................... 280W
Developing Countries: Water ................................. 280W
East Kilbride.......................................................... 281W
International Assistance......................................... 281W
Latin America........................................................ 281W
Nepal ..................................................................... 281W
Overseas Aid.......................................................... 282W
Training ................................................................. 282W
JUSTICE...................................................................
Coroners: Teesside .................................................
Crime: Victims .......................................................
Enfield ...................................................................
Magistrates Courts: Nottinghamshire....................
Work Capability Assessment: Appeals ...................
213W
213W
213W
214W
214W
214W

Col. No.
NORTHERN IRELAND .......................................... 218W
Buildings................................................................ 218W
G4S........................................................................ 218W
Inflation................................................................. 219W
Northern Ireland Prison Service ............................ 219W
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.................. 219W
Publications ........................................................... 220W
SCOTLAND.............................................................. 216W
Buildings................................................................ 216W
G4S........................................................................ 216W
Housing Benefit ..................................................... 217W
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.................. 217W
Publications ........................................................... 217W
Welfare State: Reform ............................................ 218W
TRANSPORT ........................................................... 224W
Buildings................................................................ 224W
Bus Services: Concessions ...................................... 225W
Motor Vehicles: Testing ......................................... 225W
Motorways: Speed Limits ...................................... 226W
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.................. 226W
Publications ........................................................... 227W
Rail Franchise Advisory Panel ............................... 227W
Railways: Franchises .............................................. 227W
Rescue Services ...................................................... 227W
Transport: Nottinghamshire .................................. 228W
West Coast Railway Line ....................................... 228W
TREASURY .............................................................. 269W
Advance Corporation Tax...................................... 269W
Banks: Loans ......................................................... 270W
Banks: Pay ............................................................. 270W
Buildings................................................................ 270W
Children: Day Care ................................................ 270W
Construction: Scotland .......................................... 271W
Corporation Tax .................................................... 271W
Col. No.
TREASURY—continued
Economic Growth.................................................. 272W
Enfield ................................................................... 272W
European Court of Human Rights ........................ 272W
G4S........................................................................ 272W
Goldman Sachs...................................................... 273W
Housing: Repairs and Maintenance ....................... 273W
Income Tax ............................................................ 273W
Income Tax: Warrington........................................ 274W
National Insurance Contributions: Peterborough .. 275W
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.................. 275W
Publications ........................................................... 275W
Revenue and Customs............................................ 275W
Tax Havens: British Virgin Islands ......................... 277W
Tonnage Tax .......................................................... 277W
Tourism: Government Assistance........................... 278W
Welfare Tax Credits................................................ 278W
WALES...................................................................... 212W
Energy.................................................................... 212W
WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 323W
Children: Poverty ................................................... 323W
Disability Living Allowance................................... 324W
Employment and Support Allowance: Scotland..... 324W
G4S........................................................................ 324W
Homelessness ......................................................... 325W
Housing Benefit: Greater London.......................... 325W
Pay......................................................................... 326W
Personal Independence Payment............................ 326W
Poverty: Children ................................................... 326W
Social Security Benefits: Veterans .......................... 327W
State Retirement Pensions...................................... 327W
Unemployed People: Internet................................. 328W
Universal Credit..................................................... 329W
Universal Credit: North West................................. 329W
Universal Credit: Scotland..................................... 329W
Work Programme................................................... 329W
MINISTERIAL CORRECTION
Wednesday 15 May 2013
Col. No.
WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 5MC
State Retirement Pensions ..................................... 5MC

Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote
Office.
The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them.
No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume
should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must
be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,
not later than
Wednesday 22 May 2013
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE
PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES
Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of
publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of
Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are
available at the Vote Office.
PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES
DAILY PARTS
Single copies:
Commons, £5; Lords, £4.
Annual subscriptions:
Commons, £865; Lords, £600.
LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request.
BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session.
Single copies:
Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition).
Standing orders will be accepted.
THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing
order.
All prices are inclusive of postage

Volume 563
Wednesday
No. 6 15 May 2013
CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 May 2013
Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 617] [see index inside back page]
Secretary of State for Wales
Prime Minister
Petrol Prices [Col. 639]
Statement—(Mr Davey)
Debate on the Address [Col. 655]
Amendment—(Ed Balls)—on a Division, negatived
Amendment—(Mr Baron)—on a Division, negatived
Amendment—(Mr Llwyd)—on a Division, negatived
Main Question, on a Division, agreed to
Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas Anderson [Col. 762]
Debate on motion for Adjournment
Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 39WS]
Written Answers to Questions [Col. 201W] [see index inside back page]
Ministerial Correction [Col. 5MC]